I 


BAPTISM, 


"VV  I  T  H      REFERENCE      TO 


IMPORT    AND    MODES, 


EDWARD    BEECHER,   D.D, 


NEW    YORK: 
JOHN      WILEY,     161     BROADWAY 

AND  13  PATERNOSTER  ROW,  LONDON, 

1849. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  3'ear  1848,  by 

REV.  EDWARD  BEECHER,  D.D., 

in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Southern  District  of  New  York. 


R.   CRAlUHKAD,    PRINTKR  &,  BTEREOTYrKK, 
112    FULTON    STRKET. 


PREFACE. 


It  is  a  very  striking  fact,  and  one  which  I  do  not  remember 
ever  to  have  seen  properly  noticed,  if  noticed  at  all,  that  the  con- 
troversy on  the  import  of  the  word  /Ha-Trrl^w  is,  in  its  origin,  en- 
tirely modern.  In  Matthige's  history  of  Greek  Literature  we  find 
an  account  of  the  authors  who  have  written  in  Greek,  beginning 
with  Homer,  lOOO  B.  C,  and  ending  with  Constantinus  Harme- 
nopulus,  1380  A.  D.  This  history  includes  all  the  poets,  orators, 
historians,  philosophers,  physicians,  mathematicians,  geographers, 
rhetoricians,  and  philologists  of  Greece,  also  the  Greek  Fathers 
of  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  Byzantine  writers  of  the  middle 
ages.  For  more  than  two  thousand  years,  then,  the  Greek 
language  was  written ;  though  with  diminished  purity  and  classic 
elegance,  by  the  Patristic  and  Byzantine  writers.  And  yet 
during  this  long  period,  never  was  the  position  assumed  by  any 
writer  of  Greek,  concerning  the  import  of  the  word  (Safri^ojy 
which  is  now  assumed  by  Dr.  Carson  and  other  Baptist  writers, 
i.  e.  that  (Baiirri^oj  means  exclusively  to  immerse. 

Nor  was  this  because  the  attention  of  writers  of  Greek  was 
not  turned  to  the  subject.  The  question  came  up  whether  affu- 
sion on  a  bed,  in  the  case  of  sick  persons,  should  be  regarded  as 
valid  baptism.  It  was  decided  that  it  should,  and  no  one  ever 
made  the  reply,  Christ  commanded  us  to  immerse,  the  word 
(Sa'ffTi^o  means  only  to  immerse,  and  you  cannot  immerse  by 
sprinkling  or  affusion  on  a  bed.  The  reason  is  plain.  So  long 
as  the  Greek  was  a  living  spoken  language,  no  one  dared  to  take 
this  ground. 


IV  PREFACE. 

Nor  is  this  all ;  lexicons  and  vocabularies  were  made  by 
Suidas,  Zonaras,  Hesychius,  and  others,  exhibiting  sometimes 
the  classical,  at  others,  the  ecclesiastical  uses  of  the  word,  and 
yet,  in  no  instance,  taking  the  modern  Baptist  ground,  not  to  say 
that  some  directly  oppose  it. 

Besides  all  this,  numerous  treatises  on  Baptism  were  written  in 
Greek,  and  allusions  to  it  are  frequent  in  all  the  Greek  Fathers. 
Moreover,  commentaries  were  written  on  both  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New,  containing  constant  allusions  to  baptism,  especially 
in  commenting  on  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and  on  the  predictions  of 
the  great  purification  to  be  effected  by  the  Messiah,  and  their 
fulfilment  in  the  Evangelists  ;  and  yet,  in  no  treatise  or  commen- 
tary, is  the  Baptist  ground  taken,  not  to  say  that  it  is  often  and 
pointedly  contradicted. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  Baptist  position  is  entirely  of 
modern  origin.  It  has  come  up  since  the  Greek  ceased  to  be  a 
spoken  and  written  language,  and  it  may  be  added,  that  it  depends 
for  its  continued  existence  on  preventing  a  revival  of  a  full  and 
general  knowledge  of  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  ecclesiastical 
Greek  writers. 

In  order  to  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  origin  and  peculiari- 
ties of  the  present  work  on  baptism,  I  ask  attention  to  the  follow- 
ing summary  of  facts. 

The  Septuagint,  the  New  Testament,  and  the  Greek  Fathers, 
belong  to  one  system  of  writers.  The  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment were  affected  by  the  Septuagint,  in  their  style  and  use  of 
words.     The  Fathers  were  affected  by  both. 

Taking  this  system  as  a  whole,  it  is  easy  to  produce  proof  of 
the  most  positive  and  decisive  kind,  that  (own'rl^u  means  to  purify. 
Around  these  central  and  absolutely  irresistible  passages,  there 
are  others  in  which  there   is  satisfactory  moral   evidence,  to  the 


PREFACE.  V 

same  effect,  in  various  lower  degrees  of  power,  although  the  sense 
to  immerse  is  not  impossible. 

Now  it  has  so  happened  that  the  passages  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  with  reference  to  which  this  controversy  began,  are  in  this 
second  class.  They  furnish  real  and  satisfactory  proof  to  those 
qualified  to  exercise  a  sound  critical  judgment,  and  to  feel  the 
various  degrees  and  shades  of  moral  evidence.  They  have,  in 
fact,  led  the  great  body  of  lexicographers  and  commentators  to 
decide  that  (SaifTi^o)  has  a  secondary  sense,  and  does  not  always 
mean  to  immerse. 

My  investigations  began  with  passages  of  this  kind.  Indeed,  I 
was  not  aware,  when  I  began,  of  the  existence  of  the  stronger 
class  of  passages. 

I  therefore  stated  the  laws  of  probability,  and,  in  the  exercise 
of  a  critical  judgment,  came  to  a  result. 

From  a  slight  examination  of  the  language  of  the  Fathers,  I 
came  to  the  same  results.  These  results  are  contained  in  Part  I., 
and  were  published  in  1840,  and  were  republished  in  England, 
with  the  decided  recommendation  of  Dr.  Henderson. 

Immediately  on  their  appearance.  Dr.  Carson  published  his  first 
reply  to  me,  in  a  pamphlet  of  74  pages. 

Meantime,  before  I  had  seen  this  reply,  I  was  continuing  my 
examination  of  Patristic  usages,  and  also  undertook  a  radical  in- 
vestigation of  the  celebrated  passages  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col. 
ii.  12. 

The  results  I  published  in  1841,  and  these  compose  Part  II. 

After  this,  I  imported  a  copy  of  Dr.  Carson's  reply  to  me. 
This  led  me  to  make  new  investigations  in  the  Fathers,  the  result 
of  which  I  published  in  1843.     These  compose  Part  III. 

To  these  Dr.  Carson  published  a  short  answer,  and  soon  after 
died.     His  work  on  Baptism,  including  this  answer,   and  others 


VI  PREFACE. 

of  his  controversial  writings,  were  published  in  London,  in  a 
volume  of  500  pages,  just  before  his  death,  and  were  at  length 
republished  in  this  country. 

To  this  second  reply,  and  to  other  parts  of  his  book,  I  now  pub- 
lish a  final  answer,  which  is  contained  in  Part  IV. 

No  one  can  fail  to  notice  how  entirely  the  critical  judgments  of 
my  earlier  investigations  are  sustained,  when  the  whole  system  to 
which  they  belong  is  unfolded. 

And  yet,  because  the  evidence  on  which  these  earlier  critical 
judgments  rested,  did  not  amount  to  an  impossibility  of  the  sense 
to  immerse.  Dr.  Carson,  and  the  whole  body  of  the  Baptists 
would  have  trod  them  down  as  nothing. 

The  issue  of  the  controversy  shows  that  it  is  dangerous  thus  to 
despise  such  results  of  moral  evidence,  and  critical  judgment, 
especially  under  the  bias  of  organic  influences.  The  greatest 
questions  of  life  are  often  decided  by  similar  moral  evidence. 

Although,  therefore,  I  have  produced  passages  so  strong  as  to 
defy  any  fair  answer,  yet  I  still  look  with  great  pleasure  and  in- 
creasing confidence  on  the  first  results  of  my  critical  judgments. 
The  capacity  of  perceiving  the  various  shades  of  moral  evidence 
which  God  has  given  us,  was  not  designed  to  lead  us  astray. 

My  original  articles  I  have  revised,  enlarged,  and  rewritten,  as 
seemed  best.  But  I  have  not  deemed  it  best  to  make  any  radical 
changes,  because  there  is  a  historical  interest  attached  to  them,  in 
consequence  of  the  extended  discussion  to  which  they  have  given 
rise. 

So  far  as  I  know,  this  is  the  first  time  in  which  the  issue  pre- 
sented in  this  work  has  been  discussed,  in  full  view  of  its  relations 
to  the  usages  of  that  system  of  writers,  by  whom  the  question  in 
controversy  must  be  finally  settled. 

Boston,  Aug.  27,  1848. 


CONTENTS. 


PART   I. 

This  portion  of  the  discussion  was  republished  in  England,  and 
gave  rise  to  Dr.  Carson's  first  reply. 


CHAPTER    I. 


The  Import  of  (Sairri^u. 

PAGE 

Introduction.     Reasons  for  engaging  anew  in  the  discus- 
sion,         1 

Division  of  Christians,  and  desirableness  of  unity,      .         .       ib. 
God's  mode  of  producing  unity,        .....         2 

§  1 .     Statement  of  the  case,  and  principles  of  investigation,     3,  4 
§  2.     Causes  of  the  disregard  of  these  principles,  and  the 
false    positions    to   which    this   disregard    has  given 
rise,        .........     5-7 

§  3.     Statement  of  the  position  to  be  proved,       .         .         .  7-11 
Four  false  positions,         .         .  .         .         .         .         .     7,  8 

The  true  position,  .......         8 

Other  uses  of  [3oLifri^o),  .  .  .  .  .  .  9,  10 

Transition  to  the  sense  claimed,        .         .         .         .  10,11 

§  4.     Doctrine  of  probabilities,  ....  11-18 

Laws  of  mind  and  of  language   favor  the  transition  al- 

leged, 11-13 

Analogous  transitions  in  other  words,         .         .         .  13-18 

§  5.     Probabilities  as  to  jSwrrri^oj,     .  .  .  .  18,  19 

Influence  of  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  .         .         .19 

§  6.     Probabilities  from  the  subject,  .         .         .  19, 20 

Use  of  the  word  to  describe  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,     .       20 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

§  7.     Philological  principles, 20-22 

The  true  nature  of  a  cumulative  argument,  ...  22 
§  8.     A  question  about  purifying,     ....  22-25 

In  Jn.  iii.  25,  xaSaPK^fhos  is  a  synonyme  of  fSanfTicfiJ^og,  .        22 

Facts  of  the  case,  and  conclusion,     ....  23,24 

§  9.     Accordance  of  this  view  with  the  prophecies,  and  the 

language  of  the  Old  Testament,  .  .  .  25,26 

§  10.     Baptism  of  water,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  contrasted 

by  John, 26,27 

§11.     Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  ....       28 

§12.     Sacrificial  sense  of /DaTfTj Jw,  .         .         .  28-31 


CHAPTER    II. 

The  Import  of  /Sacrr/^w. 

§  13.     Mosaic  Purifications, 32-37 

Called  f^wffTKf ixoi  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  in  the  sense  xa^oc^itf/jLoj       .       32 
Scope  of  the  passage,       ....*..       ib. 

They  relate  to  persons,    .......       ib. 

They  are  enjoined,  .......       ib. 

No  immersions  of  persons  are  enjoined,     .         .         .  33,  34 

Immersion  of  persons  was  not  deemed  important,         .         .       35 
The  immersions  of  things  enjoined  in  the  law,  not  referred 

to  here,  ........       ib. 

Immersions  are  not  diverse,  purifications  are,     ...        86 
Purification  accords  with  the  Spirit  of  the  passage,     .  .       37 

§  14     Jewish  purifications,      .....  38-40 

8,  and  in  Luke 

38 

.       ib. 

.       ib. 

39 

.       40 


fBu'jfri^o)  means  to  purify  in  Mark  vii.  4 

xi.  38,  ... 

The  sense  appropriate. 
The  context  demands  it, 
Immersion  of  couches  absurd. 
False  principles  of  Dr.  Carson, 
Statements  of  Prof.  Ripley  and  Dr.  Gill,  devoid  of  force,     .       ib. 
§  15.     Purification  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,       .         .  40-43 

In  Sirach  xxxi.  25,  /Sacrr/^CAj  means  to  purify,   ...       40 
The  preposition  a-ro  demands  this  sense,  .         .         .41 


42 

ib. 
43 

ib. 

44 

44-47 

44 


CONTENTS.  •       IX 

PAGE 

No  immersion  was  enjoined,  but  washing,  and  the  essence 

of  the  rite  was  sprinkling,  .  .  .  .     4^^  .       41 

Xou'w    means  to  wash,  to  cleanse  ;   Xourrj^sg  denotes  wash 
basins  for  the  hands,  ..... 

View  of  Philo,  ....... 

§  16.     Judith  xii.  7,  /3a-7rTi^w  means  to  purify, 
Nature  of  the  case  demands  it,  .... 

Dr.  Carson  admits  that  all  the  lexicographers  and  commenta 

tors  are  against  him,  .         .  .         ,         . 

§  17.     Relations  to  the  system  of  writers, 
Current  of  probability  all  one  way. 
Baptism  of  Paul,  Acts  xxii.    16.     Reference  of  Peter   to 

baptism  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  Language  of  Josephus      .  45,46 

§  18.     The  Fathers, 47, 48 

Their  authority.      ......••       47 

Appealed  to  merely  to  decide  the  usus  loquendi  of  /Sa-n'ri'^w       48 
§  19.     Baptismal  Regeneration,         ....  48-50 

§20.     Denial  of  water  baptism,        ....  50,51 

§  21.     Patristic  usage, 51-54 

In  speaking  of  the  rite  they  often  omit  the  idea  immersion. 
They  use  (Sam'TKfixog  in  the  sense  purification.  They 
often,  in  describing  the  rite,  use  xadai'^w  or  xa&a^i^Uj  to 
purify,  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .52 


PART  II. 

This  portion  of  the  original  discussion  was  not  republished  in 
England,  and  was  written  before  Dr.  Carson's  reply  to  the  first 
part  was  seen. 

CHAPTER    I. 

The  Import  of  /Sa-Tr^-j'^w. 

Recapitulation  of  the  argument,        .....       55 

§  22.     Patristic  practice, 55-57 

Bewildering    and    disturbing    influence    of  patristic    prac- 
tice,          55, 56 


X  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Facts  as  to  that  practice, 57 

§  23.     Pklse  inferences,  .....  57-60 

Philological  opinions  of  the  Fathers   inferred  from  their 

practice.     Opinion  of  Prof.  Stuart,    ....       58 

Inference  incorrect,  .......        59 

Causes  of  the  prevalence  of  immersion,     ...  59,  60 

§  24.     Decisive  cases  from  the  Fathers  called  for,     .  60,  61 

§  25.     Baptism  of  blood,  in  the  case  of  Christ,  .  61-63 

Views  of  the  Fathers,  Origen,  Athanasius,  Chrysostom,  Gre- 
gory Naz.,  Theophylact,  John  of  Damascus,        .  62,  63 
§  26.     Baptism  of  blood  in  the  case  of  martyrs,            .           63-68 
Strong  tendencies  to  desire  martyrdom,     ....       63 

Opinion  as  to  its  expiatory  power,  ....       64 

To  denote  its  purifying  power  /DaTfr/^w  was  used,        .  .       ib. 

Origen,  Chrysostom,  Gregory  Naz.,  Augustine,  Petilianus,  64-66 
The  Fathers  understood  Mat.  xx.  22,  23,  Mark  x.  38,  39, 


ify.     In  this  they 

66,  67 

67,  68 
.       68 

Objection  from 


Luke  xii.  49,  50,  in  the   sense  pur 
were  correct, 
Causes  of  modern  erroneous  view,     . 
Opinions  of  modern  Greeks,     . 
§  27.     Principles  as  to  co-existent  senses 

2  Kings  v.  14,  refuted.  Different  senses  of  b^to.  Opi- 
nion of  Suicer  and  Fuerstius.  Parallel  case  in  /Sa'Trrw 
supposed,  .......  68, 69 

§  28.     Coincident  facts, 69-82 

Relation  of  the  rite  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins,     ...        69 
Words  with  which  (Sairri^u  is  interchanged,      ...       70 
xuTaSudis  is  used  for  immersion,         .....       ib. 

When  jSa-TTT-KrfjLa  is  used  in  this  sense  an  explanatory  note 

needed,  ........       71 

General  principles  hence  derived,     .         .         .         .  71, 72 

Immersion  never  defended  on  philological  grounds.     Case 

of  Cyprian, 72,73 

Baptism   of  the  deluge,  and  of  the   Red  Sea.     Views  of 

Augustine, 73,74 

Elias  baptizing  the  wood.     Origen's  view  of  it,         .         .       75 
Reasons  of  Christ's  baptism  given  by  the  Fathers.    Not  like 

those  given  by  Prof.  Chase,       .....       ib. 
Augustine's  views,  .......       ib. 


CONTENTS. 


^: 


PAGE 


Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     Gregory  Nyss.  Augustine, 

Origen, 76 

Opinions  of  the  Fathers  on  Heb.  ix.  10.     Athanasius,  Theo- 

phylact,  Macarius,  Tertullian,  ...  76, 77 

Baptism  of  fire,  Origen,  Jerome,  Rufinus,  .         .  77,  78 

Baptism  of  tears.     Nilus,  Gregory  Nyss.  ...       79 

Application  of  Old  Testament.     Justin  Martyr,  Hippolytus, 

Cyprian,  Jerome,      ......  79, 80 

Clinic  baptism,        ........       80 

Fitness  of  the  idea  purification  to  be  the  name  of  the  rite, 

and  unfitness  of  the  idea  immersion,  .         .         .81 

Immersion  used  figuratively  denotes  degradation,  and  is  not 

adapted  to  describe  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  .       82 


CHAPTER    II. 

The  Interpretation  of  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  CoL  ii.  12. 

§  29.     Importance  of  a  correct  interpretation  of  these  pas- 
sages,        83-85 

Requisites  for  union  among  Christians,      ....       83 

Influence  of  these  texts  to  prevent  union  great,  .         .       84 

Opinion  of  critics,  .......       ib. 

Confidence  of  the  Baptists  in  them,    ....  84,  85 

§  30.     Points   at  issue.     Principles  of  reasoning.     Is  the 
baptism  external  ?     Are  the  burial  and   resurrection 
external  ?     Principles,       .....  85,  86 

§  31.     Position  to  be  proved.     Sources  of  evidence,   .  86,  87 

§  32.     Argument    from  the   logical    exigencies   of    Rom. 


vi.  3,  4, 

,         , 

87-95 

The  baptism  here  spoken  of,  destroys  sin. 

External 

rites 

do  not,             

,         , 

88-91 

Theory  of  Prof.  Chase, 

, 

.       92 

Theory  of  Dr.  Carson,     .... 

, 

.       93 

Remark  of  Mr.  Barnes, 

, 

.       95 

The  internal  view  alone  logical, 

. 

.       ib. 

§  33.     Argument  from  the  usus  loquendi 

as  to  Spiritual 

Death,  Burial,  &c. 

. 

95-103 

Principles, 

. 

95-97 

Xll  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Table  of  parallel  analogies,      ......       98 

Reasons  of  the  usage,       .  .  .  .  .  .         99, 100 

Scripture  proof, 101-103 

True  interpretation,  ......  103 

§  34.     Argument  from  the  congruity  of  the  interpretation 

with  the  general  system  of  truth,       .         .         .      103-107 

Verisimilitude,  what? 103 

Incongruities,  .......      104-106 

§  35.     Argument  from  the  moral  tendencies  and  effects  of 

each  mode  of  interpretation,       ....      107-110 

Tendency  of  men  to  avoid  self-crucifixion  and  to  fall  into 

formalism,        .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .107 

The  external   interpretation  augments  this  tendency;  the 

internal  opposes  it, 107, 108 

Appeal  to  facts, 109,110 

§  36.     Objection  from  authority  considered,       .         ,      110-114 
Appeal  to  authority  here  is  illogical,  ...  110 

There  has  been  a  universal  pe^i^z'o  prmczpi?!,        .         .      110,111 
Facts  in  the  New  Testament  as  to  internal  and  external 

baptism, 111,112 

Exposition  of  1  Cor.  x.  2,  and  result,         .         .         .  112 

Pernicious  influence  of  external  and  technical  use  of  the 

word  baptism, 112,113 

The  language  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  would  have 
been  as  it  is  now,  had  there  been  no  external  rite  of 

baptism, 113,114 

§37.     Apostolic  practice  considered,  .  .  .      114,115 

It  is  not  binding  on  us,  for  the  command  is  only  to  purify. 
No  mode  can  be  proved  to  have  been  universal.     The 
presumption  is  in  favor  of  liberty  and  variety,     .         .114 
Causes  of  modern  inflexible  rigidity,         .         .         .         .115 

§38.     Final  result, 115,116 

Three  fundamental  points  of  the  discusssion,  and  the  deci- 
sion on  each,  .......     115 

Result  of  the  whole  ;  as  to  the  mode  of  purification  we  may 

enjoy  Christian  liberty,     .  .  .  .  .  .116 

Unity  on  the  Baptist  ground  impossible,     .         .         .         .116 


CONTENTS. ' 


XIU 


PART   III. 


FIRST     REPLY     TO     DR.     CARSON. 


CHAPTER    I. 


Examination  and  refutation  of  Dr. 
Position. 


Carson's  Principles  and 


. 

117 

,              . 

.      117- 

-120 

• 

• 

117 
118 

.  Malcom, 

Baptist 

God's  providence  with  reference  to  the  Baptist  controversy. 

Two  systems  in  conflict, 
§  39.     Present  position  of  the  Baptists, 
Their  power  as  a  denomination, 
Logical  result  of  their  principles. 
Statements  of  Prof.  Eaton,  Mr.  Hinton,  H. 

American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  J.  D.  Gotch,  and 

others, 119,120 

§  40.     Inferences  from  the  opposite  system,       .  .      120-122 

Other  denominations  defended  against  the  charges  of  the 

Baptists, 121 

Charges  of  the  Baptists  retorted  against  themselves,  .  121,122 
§41.  Translation  of  the  Bible,  ....  122,123 
To  transfer  words  is  not  to  mistranslate,  ....  122 
How  the  sense  of  such  words  can  be  fixed,         .  .  .     123 

§  42.     Commandments  of  men,  ....      123, 124 

The  Baptist  demand,  is  merely  a  commandment  of  men,  .  124 
§  43.  State  of  the  controversy.  Dr.  Carson's  reply,  124-126 
Vast  results  depend  on  one  word,  .....  124 
Baptist  opinions  of  Dr.  Carson's  reply,  ....  125 
Division  of  it  into  rhetoric  and  logic,  ....     126 

§  44.  Dr.  Carson's  rhetoric.  Its  influence,  .  .  126-132 
Appeal  for  sympathy  in  his  trials,  ....  126—128 
Specimens  of  rhetoric,      ......      128,129 

Influence,        130-132 

§  45.     Dr.  Carson's  logic.     Preliminary  remarks,     .      132,  133 
§  46.     Dr.  Carson's  system  and  canons,    .         .         •      133-143 
Consists  of  four  parts,       .......     133 

He  has  labored  needlessly  to  prove  what  no  one  disputes,  .  134 
His  canon  as  to  beginning  a  secondary  sense  of  ^uirri^c*),  134, 135 


XIV  «eONTENTS. 

PAGE 

His  canons  of  trial  to  test  secondary  senses,         .         .      135-139 
His  final  step, 139,  140 

The  whole  process  is  based  on  a  begging  of  the  question,  140-143 
§  47.     My  principles.  How  Dr.  Carson  represents  them,  143-145 
§48.     True  statement  of  my  principles,  .         .      145-148 

Five  points  stated,  ......      145,  146 

True  issue  between  Dr.  Carson  and  me,  .         .      147,  148 

§  49.     Dr.  Carson's  course,  and  his  objections,  .      148-153 

He  arrogates  to  himslf  the*  philological  doctrines  of  others. 

He  does  not  state  nor  answer  my  principles.     He  is 

obliged  to  act  on  my  principles. 
Answer  to  the  case  of  Columbo  bridge 
§  50.     Appeal  lo  facts,    . 
Clemens  Alexandrinus,   . 
Justin  Martyr,         .... 
§  51.     Dr.  Carson's  principles  subvert  themselves, 
§52.     Cases.     Clinic  Baptism.    Purifying  agents, 
Nicephorus,   .... 
Tertullian,  Augustine,  Isidore, 
Maximus,  Anastasius,     . 
§  53.     Other    cases.      Expiation 

Baptism, 


by     sprinkling 


Statement  of  previous  principles  as  to  the  sacrificial  sense  of 

Baitri^^u, 160,161 

Ambrose, 162,163 

Cyril  of  Alexandria, 163,164 

Tertullian, 165 

Sense  of  tingo,         ........     166 

Justin  Martyr, ib. 

Ambrose,        .........     167 

§  54.     Passage  from  Proclus,  ....      168-170 

§  55.     Definitions    of    /Sa-Trn'^w    and    (SaitrKf^a,    by    the 

Fathers, 170-174 

Basil,  170 

Hilarius,  .........      171 

Athanasius,    .........     172 

Zonaras  and  Phavorinus, 172-174 

§56.     Proof  from  the  use  of  prepositions,  .         .      174,175 

§  57.     Argument  cumulative,  ....      175-177 


148-151 

.     152 

153-156 

153,  154 

155,  156 

156,  157 
158-160 

.     158 
.     159 
.     160 
called 

160-167 


CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGE 

Hilarius.     Baptism  of  Constantius  and  Theodosius.     Basil. 

Gregory  Nyss.        ......      175, 176 

§  58.     Dr.  Carson's  canons  cannot  weaken  it,  .      177-178 


CHAPTER    II. 

Additional  fads,  and  refutation  of  Dr.  Carson's  attack  on  the 
Biblical  and  Patristic  argument. 

§  59.     Reasons  for  a  further  notice  of  Dr.  Carson.     His 
bad    spirit  not   rebuked  by  the  Baptists.     Danger  of 
organic  corruption,            .....       179-181 
Eulogies  of  Dr.  Carson  and  of  his   reply  to  me,  as  unan- 
swerable,   181,  182 

Dr.  Carson  the  great  Baptist  champion  of  the  age,       .      183,  184 
Causes  of  his  power  as  a  leader,       .  .  .  .  .184 

§60.     Dr.  Carson's  remarks  on  the  Patristic  argument,  184-187 
He  asserts  that  the   Fathers  knew  infallibly  the  sense  of 

(Sam'ri^u,  .  •  .  .  .  .  .  ^184 

And  that  they  always  use  it  in  the  sense  to  immerse,  with- 
out exception,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .186 

Moral  character  of  this  last  statement,       .  .  .  .188 

§  61.     Additional  facts  in  refutation  of  Dr.  Carson,     .      187-195 
Ambrose,  Theodoret,       .  .  .  .  .  .  .189 

Anastasius,  Isaias  Abbas,  John  of  Damascus,     .         .         .190 
Tertullian,   Augustine,    Cyprian,    Hilarius,    Theophylact, 

Basil, 191 

Theodoret,  Theophylact,  Chrysostom,        .  .  .  .192 

Anastasius,  Ambrose,       .         .         .         .         .         .         .195 

Crossness  of  Dr.  Carson's  error,       .....       ib. 

§62.     Other  errors  of  Dr.  Carson,  .         .         .      195-197 

§  63.     General  view  of  patristic  uses  of  jSa-TfTi^oj,       .       197-202 
§  64.     General  view  applied,  ....      202-206 

Photius,  Theophylact, 202 

Trine  immersion.     Balsamon,  Gregory  Naz.     .         .         .     203 

Chrysostom, 204, 205 

Gregory  Nyss.        ........     205 

Use  of  prepositions,         .......     206 

§  65.     Commission  to  baptize,  ....      206,  207 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

The  commission  not  omitted   in  Luke   and  John,  though 

not  given  by  the  word  (Ba-TfTi^u,  ....     207 

§  66.     Dr.  Carson's  dissertation  on  XoJw,  .  .      207-211 

His  effort  to  settle  tlie  question,  .....     208 

Reply.     Porphyry,   Photius,    Zonaras,    Basil,    Nicephorus 

Gregoras,  Julius  Pollux,  Anaxilas,     .          .         .      208, 209 
Origen,  Gregory  Naz.,  Eupolis,  Euripides,  Strabo,     .  .     210 
Force  ofkovu,  viVrw,  and  ifXvvu),         ....       210,  211 
§  67.     Dr.  Carson's   attack  on  the  Biblical  argument  re- 
pelled,                    211-224 

Summary  of  the  argument,      .....      211,212 
Dr.  Carson's  whole  process  illogical,  .  .  .      212,  213 

Vindication  of  the  argument  from  Jn.  iii.  25.     Chrysostom, 

Gregory  Nyss.,  Cyril  Alexandrinus,  Theophylact,  213,  214 
Vindication  of  the  argament  from  the  Old  Testament,  214-217 
Basil,  Eusebius,  Origen,  Jerome,  Cyril  Alexandrinus,  Theo- 

doret,       .  .' 215,216 

Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  Cyril,  Origen,  Basil,         .      217,  218 
Dr.  Carson's  lesson  in  rhetoric,  .....     219 

Sacrificial  purification,    .  .         .  .  .  .219, 220 

Divers  baptisms,  .......     220 

Commentary  of  Theophylact  on  Jn.  iii.  25,         .         .         .     221 
True  translation  of  the  passage,  .....       ib. 

Baptism  of  couches,  and  baptism  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,    .     222 

Baptism  of  Paul,  223 

Baptism  of  the  flood,        .......       ib. 

Cyprian,  .........       ib. 

§  68.     Dr.    Carson's    reply    to    the    argument    from    the 

Fathers, 224-229 

False  statement  of  facts,  ....  .     224 

True  character  of  my  argument,       ....      225,  226 

"  Original  nonsense," 227-229 

§  69.     Result, 229, 230 

§  70.     Conclusion, 230-237 

Position  of  the  Baptists  dishonorable  to  God,  and  injurious 

alike  to  themselves  and  to  the  church,         .  .      231-233 

No  higher  duty  than  to  bring  this  controversy  to  a  close,     .     233 
To  terminate  it  possible,  ......       ib*. 

Obstacles  to  such  a  result,        ......     234 


CONTENTS. 


XVU 
PAGE 


*rhe  responsibility  rests  on  learned  scholars  and  leading 

minds,  ........     235 

Recommendations  of  the  view  advocated  by  this  work,         .     236 


PART  IV. 


NOTICE      OF      DR.      CARSON     S      SECOND     REPLY 


CHAPTER     I. 

Analysis  of  Dr.  Carson's  Reply. 

§71.     State  of  the  controversy, 

The  true  issue,        .         .         .         .         . 

Facts  in  the  case,  ..... 

Dr.  Carson's  course  is  a  confession  of  defeat,     . 

§  72.     Philosophy  of  Dr.  Carson's  second  reply, 

His  high  reputation  in  England,  Scotland,  and  Ireland, 

His  purpose  was  to  destroy  the  influence  of  my  argument 

without  answering  it, 243,  244 

§  73.  American  Baptist  Publication  Society,  .  .  244 
Have  endorsed  and  republished  Dr.  Carson's  work,  .  .  ib. 
Eulogies  of  the  work  and  defence  of  Dr.  Carson's  spirit,  244, 245 
"Attic  salt," 245 


238-243 
.  238 

239-241 
.  242 

243,  244 
.  243 


§  74.  Motives  to  reply  to  Dr.  Carson,  ....  246 
It  gives  an  opportunity  to  review  his  whole  work,  and  to  add 

new  facts  and  arguments,  .....     246 

§75.  Outline  of  Dr.  Carson's  second  reply,  .  .  247-249 
§  76.  Question  concerning  principles,  .  .  .  250, 251 
§  77.  Additional  exposure  of  Dr.  Carson,  .  .  251-254 
§  78.     Begging  the  question,  .....     254 

§  79.  My  Principles  vindicated,  .  .  ,  .  255-260 
Dr.  Carson  agitated  and  confused,  .  .  .  .  .261 
§  80.  Argument  from  prepositions,  stated  at  large,  ,  261-266 
Chrysostom,  Origen,  Basil,  Paul,  .....  262 
Justin  Martyr,  Athanasius,  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  .     263 


Acta    Passionis  Pamphilii, 
Gregory  Nazianz., 


Eusebius,  John  of  Damascus, 


264 


XVlll  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Cyril  of  Jerus.;  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  .         .         .     265 

Translation  of  sv, 266 

§  81.     Dr.  Carson's  magnanimity,  .         .         .      266-269 

Imaginary  error  as  to  sx,  ......     267 

Constructio  Pregnans, 269, 2Tt) 

§  82.     Dr.  Carson's  first  alleged  mode  of  solving  all  my 

quotations  from  the  Fathers,  ....  269,  270 
The  theory  is  false,  and  insufficient  if  true,  .  .  .  270 
§  83.  Dr.  Carson's  second  mode  of  solution,  .  .  270-276 
Abandons  the  ground  of  the  first  theory,  .         .         .     270 

Taking  the  word  emblem  in  its  true   sense,  the  theory  is 

false, 271 

Secondary  sense  of  the  word  emblem,        .  .  .  .271 

Second  theory  insufficient.  Dr.  Carson  being  judge,  .  272-276 
§  84.     Dr.  Carson's  self-contradiction,       .         .  .      276, 277 

He  makes  assertions  for  effect,  .....     278 

§  85.  Dr.  Carson's  false  theory  as  to  clinic  baptisms,  279-282 
Dr.  Carson's  ignorance  of  Cyprian's  usus  loquendi,     .  .     279 

Mistranslation  of  Cyprian,        ......     280 

Other  errors, 281,  282 

§  86.  Dr.  Carson's  insinuations,  ....  282,  283 
He  insinuates  that  my  quotations  from  the  Fathers  do  not 

prove  the  sense  of  (Sai^iti^o)  at  the  time  of  establishing 

the  ordinance,  .......     282 

Refutation,  283 


CHAPTER    II. 

Dr.  Carson^s  attempt  to  argue  from  the  Fathers. 

Introductory  remarks,     .......     284 

§  87.     Point  at  issue, 285-287 

§  88.     Analysis  and  classification  of  Dr.  Carson's  asser- 

tions, 287-291 

Four  irrelevant  assertions,        .....      287,  288 

Two,  draw  false  inferences  from  historical  facts,        .      289,  290 
Three  already  answered,         ......     290 

One  an  argument  against  himself,  .         .         .         .       ib. 

The  rest  not  to  his  purpose, 291 


CONTENTS.  XIX 

PAGE 

291,292 
293-299 

.  292 
293, 294 
295-298 

.  299 
299-302 
302-304 
304, 305 
305-308 

.  305 
306,  307 

.  308 
and  notice  of  Dr. 


§  89.     Second  class  of  assertions, 

§  90.       Assertions  as  to  Justin  Martyr, 

Importance  of  Justin's  testimony, 

Justin's  description  of  baptism. 

Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew, 

Other  assertions,     ...... 

§  91.     Dr.  Carson's  demonstration, 

§  92.      Argument  from  Tertullian  and  Chrysostom, 

§  93.     Trine  immersion,  .... 

§  94.  '  Appeal  to  Jerome  and  Cyprian, 

Dr.  Carson's  strange  assertion, 

Jerome's  real  view,  ..... 

Cyprian's  real  view, 

§  95.     Cause  of  Dr.  Carson's  delusion, 

Sears, 308-310 

§96.     Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,    ....      310-316 

Importance    of  the    topic.     Great    efforts    of    Dr.    Carson 

through  his  volume.      Turning  point  of  the  discussion, 

View  of  Dr.  Carson,  Neander,  Wahl,  Rosenmiiller,  Schleus- 

ner,  and  Bloomfield,  ...... 

This  view  clearly  erroneous  by  the  explicit  testimony  of  the 
Fathers,  ..... 

Paul  testifies  against  it,  ... 

The  antithesis  forbids  it,  ... 

Dr.  Carson's  lesson  in  rhetoric  of  no  avail, 
§  97.     Dr.  Carson's  candor,     . 
§  98.     Dr.  Carson's  bad  spirit, 
§  99.     Dr.  Carson's   first   series  of  attacks  on  my  com- 
petency as  a  scholar,         .....      322-326 

§100.     Second  series  of  attacks,      ....      326-333 

Dr.  Carson's  aim  in  such  a  course,  .....     327 

Assault  on  the  statement  as  to  taking  away  the  right  to 

think  others  wrong, 327,  328 

He  charges  me  falsely  with  trying  to  prove   my  point  by 

recommendations,     .......     328 

He  tries  to  rebut  the  assertion  as  to  the  inconvenience  of 

immersion,       ........     328 

He  assails  me  for  declaring  my  view  liberal,  and  free,  rea- 
sonable, and  fit, 329, 330 


310 


310 


311,312 
.  313 
313,314 
314-316 
316,317 
317-322 


XX  CONTENTS. 

PAGfi 

He  assails  the  remarks  as  to  the  formalism,  arrogance,  and 

exclusion,  to  which  immersion  tends,  .         .      330,  331 

He   ridicules  the  statement  that  this  view  is  adequate  to 

harmonize  the  church, 331,  332 

Remarks  as  to  capability  of  proof,     .....     333 

Dr.  Carson's  reasons   for  assailing  my  competency  as   a 

scholar  stated  in  his  own  words,         .         :         .         .     333 

Conclusion, 333, 334 


Note  1.     On  commingling  of  senses,   and   on   baptismal 

regeneration,  as  spoken  of  in  §§  19,  20,       .         .         .     335 

Note  2.     On  the  opinions  of  the  modern  Greeks  as  referred 

to  on  page  68 ib» 

Note  3.  On  evidence  of  the  sense  to  Wash  in  /Sa-n'Ti^w,  de- 
rived from  baths  :  to  illustrate  pp.  192  and  198,  .     336 

Note  4.  Extract  from  letters  to  Rev.  Wm.  Hague,  in 
reply  to  Dr.  Carson's  assertion  on  a  passage  from 
Clement,  quoted  on  p.  153,  §  50,        .         .         .         .       ib. 

Note  5.     No  attempt  by  Dr.  Carson  to  reply  to  Part  II. 

Chap.  II.  on  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.     Col.  ii.  12.    .         .         .     342 


PARTI. 

THE     IMPORT    OF    /3a<rm'^w. 

CHAPTER      I  . 

To  engage  anew  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  of  Baptism, 
may  seem  to  need  an  apology.  Mine  is,  that  it  is  a  point  in 
which  Christians  are  not  as  yet  agreed,  and  therefore  all  truth  is 
not  seen.  For  I  cannot  think  that  God  has  of  design  hidden  the 
truth,  or  that  he  has  revealed  it  doubtfully  on  a  point  which  has 
proved  to  be  of  such  magnitude  by  its  practical  results.  Hence 
I  believe  that  when  all  truth  is  seen  on  this  subject,  which  may 
be  seen,  all  true  Christians  will  so  far  agree  that  no  obstacle  to 
their  perfect  union  in  feeling  and  action  will  remain. 

But  the  truth  on  this,  as  on  all  other  subjects,  is  not  to  be 
elicited  by  the  action  of  any  one  mind,  but  by  the  united  contri- 
butions of  many. 

When  in  the  dark  ages,  in  the  midnight  of  Papal  gloom,  all 
truth  was  lost  or  obscured,  and  the  social  fabric  erected  on  prin- 
ciples radically  corrupt,  it  pleased  God  to  make  no  new  revela- 
tion, nor  to  raise  up  and  illumine  any  one  gigantic  mind,  of 
power  to  grasp  all  truth,  and  to  restore  it  at  once  to  its  systematic 
proportion,  or  to  erect  in  all  its  harmony  a  model  of  the  social 
system  in  its  perfect  state. 

Of  the  universal  system  different  individuals  grasped  different 
part,  yet  still  mingled  with  much  error,  and  thus  God  accom- 
plished that  which  no  single  mind  was  capacious  enough  to  do. 

1 


a  REASONS    FOR    DISCUSSION. 

He  grasped,  through  many  minds,  the  great  outlines  of  the  system 
of  universal  truth,  so  that  none  might  be  lost.  Yet  as  in  indivi- 
dual minds  it  was  still  limited  and  mingled  with  much  error, 
divisions  and  sects  arose,  eacli  holding  importanl  truth,  which 
God  was  not  willing  to  lose ;  and  yet  not  so  unmingled  or  in  such 
proportions  that  all  could  unite  as  one. 

But  this  mixture  of  error  with  truth  is  not  destined  always  to 
last.  The  movement  of  the  mind  of  the  universal  church  is 
destined  still  to  be  upward  ;  for  she  is  taught  of  God. 

And  in  completing  the  fabric  which  he  is  about  to  erect,  each 
shall  contribute  his  portion  of  truth  to  the  grand  result,  whilst  the 
errors  of  each  shall  disappear  and  die  away.  Then  shall  all 
finite  minds  be  harmonized  in  one  by  the  all-pervading  mind  of 
God.  As  if  to  prepare  the  way  for  this  result,  the  public  mind 
has  of  late  been  directed  with  new  interest  to  this  subject.  It  has 
been  brought  up  by  certain  great  questions  in  evangelizing  the 
world,  and  has  excited  much  attention. 

!-^  It  has  elicited  works  of  much  talent  and  extensive  research 
through  a  wide  field  of  philology.  The  spirit  of  the  discussion 
has  been  much  ameliorated,  at  least  in  many  of  the  leading  writers, 
though  not  always  in  the  local  and  subordinate  controversies. 
Yet  union  is  far  from  being  obtained  ;  nay,  in  some  particulars,  the 
prospect  is  more  discouraging  than  ever.  This  must  be  a  matter 
of  grief  to  all  who  desire  the  fulfilment  of  the  prayer  of  Christ. 
Nor  is  it  in  harmony  with  the  convictions  of  the  age  on  the  duty 
of  Christian  unity  ;  for  however  Christians  practise,  they  are  more 
and  more  convinced  that  there  is  something  wrong  and  offensive 
to  God  in  the  present  divided  state  of  the  Church. 

We  have  reason,  then,  to  suppose  that  exactly  the  right  ground 
has  not  been  taken  on  either  side,  and  we  ought  to  aim  at  the 
simply  ground  of  truth  for  the  sake  of  union  and  the  common 
good. 

To  furnish  some  small  share  of  the  materials  which  God  may 
use  in  producing  this  result,  is  my  object  in  this  effort. — And  at 
present  my  remarks  will  relate  entirely  to  the  mode  of  Baptism. 


§  1.  STATEMENT    OF    PRINCIPLES.  3 

§  1.     Statement  of  the  case,  and  of  j^rinciples  of  investigation. 

The  case  is  this  :  Christ  has  enjoined  the  performance  of  a  duty 
in  the  command  to  baptize. 

What  is  the  duty  enjoined  ? — or,  in  other  words,  what  does  the 
word  Baptize,  in  which  the  command  is  given,  mean  ?  One  of 
two  things  must  be  true  : — 

1.  Either  it  is,  as  to  mode,  generic,  denoting  merely  the  pro- 
duction of  an  effect  (as  purity),  so  that  the  command  may  be 
fulfilled  in  many  ways  ; — or,  it  is  so  specific,  denoting  a  definite 
mode,  that  it  can  be  fulfilled  in  but  one.  To  illustrate  by  an  analo- 
gous case,  Christ  said,  "Go,  teach  all  nations."  Here  the  word 
go,  is  so  generic  as  to  include  all  modes  of  going  which  any  one 
may  choose  to  adopt.  If  a  man  walks,  or  runs,  or  rides,  or  sails, 
he  equally  fulfils  the  command.  On  the  other  hand,  some  king  or 
ruler,  for  particular  reasons,  might  command  motion  by  a  word 
entirely  specific,  as  for  example,  that  certain  mourners  should 
walk  in  a  funeral  procession.  Now  it  is  plain  that  such  a  com- 
mand could  not  be  fulfilled  by  riding  or  by  running,  for  though 
these  are  modes  of  going,  they  are  not  modes  of  walking,  and  the 
command  is  not  to  go  in  general,  but  specifically  to  walk.  So 
when  a  general  says  March,  it  will  not  answer  for  the  soldiers  to 
run  ;  for,  though  this  is  a  mode  of  going,  it  is  not  a  mode  of 
marching. 

So,  likewise,  when  Christ  said  baptize,  he  either  used  a  word 
which  had  a  generic  sense,  denoting  the  production  of  an  eflTect, 
in  any  mode,  such  as  purify,  cleanse  ;  or  a  specific  sense,  denoting 
a  particular  mode,  such  as  immerse,  sprinkle,  pour. 

2.  Whichever  way  we  decide,  as  it  regards  the  import  of  the 
word,  we  ought  to  be  uniform  in  its  use  as  applied  to  the  rite  of 
baptism.  For  though  the  same  word  may  have  diverse  meanings 
when  applied  to  different  things,  and  in  various  circumstances, 
yet  it  certainly  cannot,  when  applied  to  the  same  thing,  and  in  the 
same  circumstances. 

Hence,  if  we  adopt  the  generic  meaning,  purify  or  cleanse,  we 


4  STATEMENT    OF    PRINCIPLES.  §  1. 

must  adhere  to  it  at  all  times,  when  speaking  of  the  rite.  On  the 
other  hand,  if  we  adopt  a  specific  meaning,  as  immerse  or  sprin- 
kle, we  must  adhere  to  it  in  the  same  way,  and  not  pass  from  the 
generic  to  the  specific,  or  from  the  specific  to  the  generic,  accord- 
ing to  exigencies,  on  the  ground  that  the  word  Barn'ri^c^  may,  in 
the  whole  circuit  of  its  use,  mean  sometimes  one  thing  and  some- 
times another.  Nor  must  we  adopt  both,  for  however  numerous 
the  possible  meanings  of  a  word  may  be  in  its  various  usages,  it 
has  in  each  particular  case  but  one  meaning,  and  in  all  similar 
cases  its  meaning  is  the  same.  Hence  the  word  Ba'TTTj^w,  as  ap- 
plied to  a  given  rite,  has  not  two  or  many  meanings,  but  one,  and 
to  that  one  we  should  in  all  cases  adhere. 

3.  If  we  adopt  a  generic  meaning,  denoting  the  production  of 
an  eflfect,  we  are  not  limited  by  the  command  to  any  specific 
mode  of  fulfilling  it,  and  are  at  liberty  to  vary  the  mode  accord- 
ing to  circumstances.  But  if  we  adopt  a  specific  meaning,  de- 
noting merely  a  mode,  we  are  limited  by  the  very  import  of  the 
command,  to  the  range  of  that  meaning. 

Hence  if  the  command  is  purify  or  cleanse,  we  are  not  limited 
by  the  command  to  any  one  mode,  but  may  choose  that  which 
seems  to  us  most  appropriate,  whether  it  be  sprinkling,  pouring, 
or  immersion. 

But  if  the  command  is  specific  and  modal,  as  immerse,  then  we 
are  limited  by  the  range  of  that  word,  and  cannot  fulfil  the  com- 
mand by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  for  these  are  not  modes  of  immer- 
sion, any  more  than  riding  is  a  mode  of  walking,  or  writing  a 
mode  of  painting. 

It  is  true  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  may  be  modes  of  purify- 
ing,— and  so  is  riding  a  mode  of  going.  But  if  the  command  is 
not  purify,  but  immerse,  then  all  debate  as  to  the  mode  is  at 
an  end,  for  you  can  immerse,  not  by  sprinkling,  but  only  by  im- 
mersion. 


§  2.  DISREGARD    OF    PRINCIPLES.  5 

§  2.   Causes  of  the  disregard  of  these  'principles,  and  the  false  posi- 
tions to  which  this  disregard  has  given  rise. 

Though  the  principles  stated  are  simple  and  obvious,  yet  the 
natural  operations  of  the  mind  on  questions  of  philology,  have 
been  in  this  case  embarrassed  and  perplexed  by  certain  influences 
of  a  kind  peculiar  to  this  word. 

At  the  time  of  the  translation  of  the  Bible,  a  controversy  had 
arisen  as  it  regards  the  import  of  the  word,  so  that,  although  it 
was  conceded  to  have  an  import  in  the  original,  yet  it  was  im- 
possible to  assign  to  it  in  English  any  meaning,  without  seeming 
to  take  sides  in  the  controversy  then  pending. 

Accordingly,  in  order  to  take  neither  side,  they  did  not  attempt 
to  give  the  sense  of  the  term  in  a  significant  English  word,  but 
merely  transferred  the  word  Bairrl^u,  with  a  slight  alteration  of 
termination,  to  our  language.  The  consequence  was  that  it  did 
not  exhibit  its  original  significancy  to  the  mind  of  the  English 
reader,  or  indeed  any  significancy,  except  what  was  derived  from 
its  application  to  designate  an  external  visible  rite. — In  short,  it 
became  merely  the  name  of  a  rite,  and  had  a  usage  strictly 
technical,  and  lost  to  the  ear  whatever  significance  it  originally 
had. 

The  habit  of  using  the  word  in  a  technical  sense,  has  tended 
to  unfit  the  mind  for  the  discussion  of  the  question  as  to  the 
mode  of  baptism,  in  various  ways,  of  which  I  shall  mention 
three. 

1.  It  has  led  to  a  departure  from  the  principles  already  stated, 
that  words,  when  applied  to  the  same  subject,  and  in  the  same 
circumstances,  cannot  have  a  double  sense.  This  rule,  as  has 
been  remarked,  does  not  forbid  tiiat  the  same  word  in  difierent 
circumstances  should  have  various  senses ;  accordingly  it  may  be 
conceded  that  tiie  word  /^a-Trri^w  has  various  senses  in  the  wide 
range  of  its  usage,  in  scriptural  and  classical  Greek  :  but  out  of 
this  variety  of  usages,  there  is  one  strictly  of  a  religious  nature, 
and  having  direct  reference  to  one  of  the  great  revealed  facts  of 


6  DISREGARD    OF    PRINCIPLES.  §  2. 

Christianity.  Now  in  a  case  like  this,  the  laws  of  philology  re- 
quire that  some  one  of  the  meanings  of  the  word"should  be  fixed 
on,  and  assigned  to  it  in  all  cases.  But  the  habit  of  using  the 
Avord  baptize  in  a  strictly  technical  sense,  as  the  name  of  a  rite, 
has  led  to  a  disregard  of  this  simple  and  obvious  rule. 

Many  writers,  fixing  their  minds  merely  upon  the  idea  of  a 
rite,  and  finding  that  the  word  Baitri^u)  means  sometimes  to  wash, 
sometimes  to  immerse,  and  sometimes,  as  they  think,  to  pour  or 
sprinkle,  conclude  that  the  rite  of  Baptism  may  be  performed  in 
either  way ;  entirely  forgetting  that,  although  the  word  should 
happen,  in  the  wide  range  of  its  usage,  scriptural  and  classical, 
secular  and  religious,  to  have  all  these  meanings,  it  by  no  means 
follows  that  when  used  as  a  religious  term,  it  has  more  than  one. 
Hence,  if  as  a  religious  term,  and  in  certain  circumstances,  it 
means  immerse,  it  does  not  also  in  similar  circumstances  mean 
to  wet  or  to  wash,  to  sprinkle  or  to  pour,  to  color  or  to  dye,  but 
simply  to  immerse.  And  just  as  plainly,  if  in  some  cases  of  its 
religious  uses,  it  means  to  purify,  it  does  not  in  others  of  the  same 
kind  mean  to  pour,  to  sprinkle,  or  to  immerse. 

2.  The  other  mode  in  which  the  technical  use  of  this  word  has 
unfitted  the  mind  for  a  fair  consideration  of  the  question  is,  it  has 
permitted  the  introduction  of  a  discussion  as  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, after  concessions  have  been  made,  which  ought  for  ever  to 
exclude  it.  For  example,  the  question  arises  what  meaning  did 
the  word  /SaTrTi^w  convey  to  those,  who  in  the  age  of  the  New 
Testament  writers  read  the  command,  go  baptize  all  nations  ? 
Was  it  to  immerse  ?  So  our  brethren  the  Baptists  maintain, 
and  so  many  who  do  not  immerse,  concede.  Now  after  such  a 
concession,  with  what  propriety  they  can  debate  any  longer  as  to 
the  mode,  I  acknowledge  that  1  cannot  perceive.  Nor  do  I  think 
that  they  would  do  it,  were  it  not  for  an  illusion  practised  by  the 
technical  word  Baptize,  upon  their  minds. 

After  admitting  as  a  point  of  philology,  that  the  word  /Sa-TfTi^w 
in  its  religious  use  means  immerse,  the  mind  seems  to  revert  to 
the  old  habit  of  using  the  Anglicised  word  baptism,  without  attach- 


§  3.  CLASSIFICATION    OF    THEORIES.  7 

ing  to  it  any  meaning,  and  we  are  at  once  told  that  it  is  of  no  use 
to  dispute  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  Suppose,  now,  instead  of 
the  word  baptism,  we  substitute  the  meaning  which  it  has  been 
conceded  to  have,  and  the  illusion  is  at  once  exposed.  We  con- 
cede that  /Da'TTTj^oj  means  immerse,  but  of  what  use  is  it  to  dispute 
concerning  the  mode  of  immersion?  Of  none,  surely,  so  you  do 
but  immerse.  But  can  you  immerse  by  sprinkling  ?  Is  sprink- 
ling a  mode  of  immersion  ?  The  fact  is,  that  if  the  word  denotes 
a  given  definite  act,  no  other  dissimilar  act  is,  or  can  be  a  mode 
of  it.  Pouring  is  not  a  mode  of  sprinkling  or  of  immersion,  nor 
is  sprinkling  a  mode  of  pouring  or  of  immersion,  nor  is  immersion 
a  mode  of  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

3.  Others,  again,  still  using  the  word  merely  as  a  technic, 
say  that  Baptism  is  the  application  of  water,  in  any  way,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but 
base  their  conclusions  rather  on  reason  and  the  nature  of  the  case, 
or  on  the  design  of  the  rite,  than  on  a  thorough  philological  investi- 
gation of  the  word.  Now  the  defect  of  this  last  mode  of  reason- 
ing is,  that  it  does  not  interpret  the  command.  It  uses  the  word 
like  a  technic,  having  no  meaning  of  its  own,  and  gives  rather  a 
description  of  a  rite,  than  a  definition  of  Ba-n-Ti^w. 

No  one  ever  pretended  to  define  Baifri^o)  as  meaning  "  to  apply 
water  in  any  way  " — of  course  Baptism  cannot  be  defined  to  be 
*'  the  application  of  water  in  any  way."  And  whether  this  view 
of  the  rite  is  correct  or  not,  must  depend  entirely  on  the  meaning 
of  the  word. 

§  3.   Statement  of  the  position  to  he  proved. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  is  plain  that  those  who  have  writ- 
ten on  the  subject  of  the  mode  of  Baptism  may  be  arranged  in 
four  classes. 

1.  Those  who  maintain  that  the  word  in  the  whole  extent  of  its 
usage  has  various  meanings,  and  from  this  fact  alone  draw  the 
inference  that,  therefore,  the  rite  may  be  performed  in  various 


8  POSITION    TO    BE    PROVED.  §  3. 

ways,  making  at  the  same  time  no  attempt  to  prove  which  of  its 
possible  meanings  it  actually  has  in  the  case  in  question. 

2.  Those  who  fix  on  a  specific  and  modal  meaning — e.  g. 
immerse,  and  which,  of  course,  excludes  all  dispute  as  to  the  mode, 
and  yet  insist  that  no  mode  is  essential. 

3.  Those  who  look  mainly  at  the  obvious  design  of  the  rite, 
i.  e.  to  indicate  purity,  and  on  this  ground  affirm  that  to  Baptize 
is  to  apply  water  in  any  way  which  denotes  purity,  without 
attempting  to  make  out  a  philological  proof  of  the  truth  of  their 
position  from  the  import  of  the  word  Ba-Trrjjw. 

4.  Those  who  insist  that  the  word  in  all  its  extent  of  usage  has 
but  one  meaning — viz.  to  immerse — and  that  this  excludes  all 
debate  as  to  the  mode. 

None  of  these  positions  is,  in  my  judgment,  adapted  to  explain 
all  the  facts  which  occur  in  the  use  of  the  word,  and  to  give 
satisfaction  and  rest  to  an  inquiring  mind.  Any  view  which  shall 
effectually  do  this  will  be  found  to  have  the  following  requisites : 

(1.)  That  it  shall  be  strictly  philological. 

(2.)  That  out  of  all  the  possible  meanings  of  jSaTTTj  Jw,  it  shall 
fix  on  one  as  the  real  meaning  in  the  case  in  question. 

(3.)  That  it  shall  at  all  times  steadily  adhere  to  this. 

(4.)  That  this  shall  limit  the  performance  of  the  rite  to  no  par- 
ticular mode. 

The  position  which  I  shall  endeavor  accordingly  to  prove  by 
appeal  to  facts,  is  this,  that  the  word  ^airri^u,  as  a  religious 
term,  means  neither  dip  nor  sprinkle,  immerse  nor  pour — nor 
any  other  external  action  in  applying  a  fluid  to  the  body,  or  the 
body  to  a  fluid — nor  any  action  which  is  limited  to  one  mode  of 
performance  ;  but  that  as  a  religious  term  it  means  at  all  times, 
to  purify,  or  cleanse — words  of  a  meaning  so  general  as  not  to  be 
confined  to  any  mode,  or  agent,  or  means,  or  object,  whether 
material  or  spiritual,  but  to  leave  the  widest  scope  for  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  mode — so  that,  in  this  usage,  it  is  in  every  respect  a 
perfect  synonym  of  the  word  xada^i^u. 

Let  it  then  be  borne  in  mind,  that  the  question  is  not  this. 


§  3.  POSITION    TO    BE    PROVED.  9 

Does  the  word  in  all  its  extent  of  usage  denote  at  any  time  a  defi- 
nite external  act  ?  Nor  this,  Is  this  its  original,  primitive  signifi- 
cation ?  Even  if  all  this  were  admitted,  it  would  not  touch  the 
question — for,  as  we  all  know,  nothing  is  more  common  than  for 
words  to  be  used  in  more  meanings  than  one,  and  to  decide  in 
what  sense  a  word  is  used  in  a  given  instance,  we  are  not  to  fol- 
low etymology  or  fancy,  but  evidence,  derived  from  the  facts  of 
the  case. 

With  regard  then  to  other  uses  of  the  word  ^a'm'^w,  I  freely 
admit  that  in  classic  usage  it  does,  as  a  general  fact,  clearly  de- 
note some  external  act  of  a  specific  kind,  yet  it  is  by  no  means 
clear  to  my  mind  that  it  does  not  in  different  cases  denote  different 
acts.  And  though  I  do  not  regard  it  as  an  integral  part  of  the 
argument  which  I  propose  to  construct,  yet  for  the  sake  of  com- 
pleteness, I  think  it  best  to  state  what  seems  to  be  the  truth  on 
this  point. 

1.  I  freely  admit  that  in  numerous  cases  it  clearly  denotes  to 
immerse — in  which  case  an  agent  submerges  partially  or  totally 
some  person  or  thing.  Indeed,  this  is  so  notoriously  true,  that  I 
need  attempt  no  proof.  Innumerable  examples  are  at  hand,  and 
enough  may  be  found,  in  all  the  most  common  discussions  of  this 
subject. 

2.  It  is  also  applied  to  cases  where  a  fluid  without  an  agent 
rolls  over,  or  floods,  and  covers  anything — as  in  the  oft  quoted 
passage  in  Diodorus  Siculus,  Vol.  VII.  p.  191,  as  translated  by 
Prof  Stuart :  "  The  river,  borne  along  by  a  more  violent  current, 
overwhelmed  many  "  (s/Da-Tr-r/^^s).  So,  Vol.  I.  p.  107,  he  speaks 
of  land  animals  intercepted  by  the  Nile,  as  (Sa'n'ri^o^svct,  over- 
whelmed  and  perishing.  The  same  mode  of  speaking  is  also  ap- 
plied to  the  sea  shore,  which  is  spoken  of  by  Aristotle  as  baptized 
or  overwhelmed  by  the  tide. 

3.  It  is  also  applied  in  cases  where  some  person  or  thing  sinks 
passively  into  the  flood.  Thus  Josephus,  in  narrating  his 
shipwreck  on  the  Adriatic,  uses  this  word  to  describe  the  sink- 
ing of  the  ship. 

1* 


10  POSITION    TO    BE    PROVED.  §  3. 

I  am  aware  that  by  some  writers  vigorous  efforts  are  made  to 
reduce  all  these  senses  to  the  original  idea  to  immerse  or  dip. 
But  it  seems  to  me  that  they  are  rather  led  by  their  zeal  to  sup- 
port a  theory,  than  by  a  careful  induction  from  facts  ;  and  that 
they  wrest  facts  to  suit  their  principles,  rather  than  derive  their 
principles  from  facts. 

To  me  it  seems  plain  that  in  all  these  cases  there  is  a  material 
difference  as  to  the  external  act,  nor  am  I  prepared  to  admit 
that  either,  in  preference  to  the  other,  is  the  original  and  primitive 
meaning  of  the  word.  If  it  were  an  object  of  much  importance 
to  decide  what  this  is,  inasmuch  as  they  all  agree  in  one  common 
idea  of  a  state  or  condition,  though  variously  caused,  I  should 
incline  to  give  to  the  word  the  meaning  to  cause  to  come  into  that 
state,  and  this  idea  is  favored  by  the  termination,  i(^w.  The  state 
is,  a  state  of  being  enveloped  or  surrounded  by  a  fluid,  or  any 
thing  else  adapted  to  produce  such  a  result.  And  a  general 
meaning  of  (Ba'n'Ti^u)  would  thus  be,  to  cause  to  come  into  this 
state — whether  it  be  done  by  an  agent  immersing  an  object  in  a 
fluid,  or  by  the  flowing  of  a  fluid  over  an  object,  without  the  in- 
tervention of  any  agent,  or  by  the  passive  sinking  of  an  object 
into  it.  In  all  these  cases  the  state  of  the  object  becomes  the 
same,  but  the  external  act,  by  which  it  comes  into  this  state,  is 
not  the  same  in  either  case. 

To  all  this,  however,  I  attach  no  great  importance  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  present  question  ;  unless  it  be  of  use  in  exposing 
the  fallacy  of  all  efforts  to  reduce  this  word  to  such  a  perfect  sim- 
plicity of  meaning,  even  as  it  regards  an  external  act,  as  is 
claimed  for  it  by  some. 

On  the  other  hand,  even  if  I  were  to  admit  that  its  original  and 
primitive  idea  was  to  immerse,  and  that  when  it  denotes  an  exter- 
nal act,  it  never  departs  from  this  sense ;  still  the  question  would 
arise,  Is  there  not  another  meaning  derived  from  the  effects  of 
this  act,  and  in  which  the  mind  contemplates  the  effect  alone,  en- 
tirely irrespective  of  the  mode  in  which  it  is  produced  ? 

I   contend  that  there   is — and  that  as  thorough  purification  or 


§  4.  PROBABILITIES.  11 

cleansing  is  often  the  result  of  submersion  in  water,  so  the  word 
(BoLirri^u)  has  come  to  signify  to  purify  or  cleanse  thoroughly, 
without  any  reference  to  the  mode  in  which  it  is  done. 


§  4.  Doctrine  of  ProbahiUties. 

There  is  not  d  priori  the  least  improbability  of  such  a  change 
of  meaning,  from  the  laws  of  the  mind,  or  of  language. 

It  may  at  first  sight  seem  an  improbable  position  to  some,  that 
if  a  word  originally  signifies  "  to  immerse,"  it  can  assume  a 
meaning  so  remote  from  its  primitive  sense  as  "  to  purify,'^  and 
entirely  drop  all  reference  to  the  mode. 

Yet  the  slightest  attention  to  the  laws  of  the  mind,  and  to  well- 
known  facts,  will  show  that  not  the  least  improbability  of  such  a 
result  exists. 

No  principle  is  more  universally  admitted  by  all  sound  philolo- 
gists, than  that  to  establish  the  original  and  primitive  meaning  of 
a  word,  is  not  at  all  decisive  as  it  regards  its  subsequent  usages. 
It  often  aids  only  as  giving  a  clue  by  which  we  can  trace  the  pro- 
gress of  the  imagination,  or  the  association  of  ideas,  in  leading 
the  mind  from  meaning  to  meaning,  on  some  ground  of  relation, 
similitude,  or  connexion  of  cause  and  effect. 

So  the  verb  to  spring,  denotes  an  act,  and  gives  rise  to  a  noun 
denoting  an  act.  A  perception  of  similitude  transfers  the  word 
to  the  issuing  of  water  from  a  fountain — to  the  motion  of  a  watch- 
spring — and  to  the  springing  of  plants  in  the  spring  of  the  year. 
Yet  who  does  not  feel  that  to  be  able  to  trace  such  a  process  of 
thought,  is  far  from  proving  that,  when  a  man  in  one  case  says, 
I  made  a  spring  over  the  ditch,  in  another,  I  broke  the  spring  of 
my  watch,  in  another,  I  drank  from  the  spring,  in  another,  I  pre- 
fer spring  to  winter,  he  means  in  each  case  the  same  thing  by  the 
word  spring  ?  And  who,  in  using  these  words,  always  resorts 
to  the  original  idea  of  the  verb  ?  Indeed,  so  far  is  it  from  being 
true  that  this  is  commonly  done,  that  most  persons  are  pleased 
when  the  track  of  the  mind  is  uncovered,  and  the  path  is  pointed 


12  PROBABILITIES.  §  4. 

out  by  which  it  had  passed  from  meaning  to  meaning,  as  if  a  new 
idea  had  been  acquired.  So  conversation,  prevent,  charity,  as  now 
used,  have  obviously  departed  widely  from  the  sense  in  which 
they  were  used  in  the  days  of  the  translators  of  the  Bible. 

But  to  multiply  words  on  a  point  so  plain,  would  be  needless, 
had  not  so  much  stress  been  laid  on  the  supposed  original  mean- 
ing of  this  word.  It  is,  therefore,  too  plain  to  be  denied,  that 
words  do  often  so  far  depart  from  their  primitive  meaning,  as  entire- 
ly to  leave  out  the  original  idea — and  that  the  secondary  senses  of 
a  word  are  often  by  far  the  most  numerous  and  important. 

Moreover,  to  establish  such  secondary  meanings,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  we  should  be  able  to  trace  the  course  of  the  mind, 
though  it  is  pleasant  to  be  able  to  do  it.  A  secondary  meaning, 
however  unlike  it  may  seem  to  the  primitive,  may  yet  be  estab- 
lished like  any  other  fact  in  the  usage  of  language,  that  is,  by 
appropriate  testimony. 

But  whilst  such  transitions  are  common  in  all  words,  they  are 
particularly  common  in  words  of  the  class  of  (oaitTi^u),  denoting 
action  by,  or  with  reference  to,  a  fluid.  This  is  owing  to  the  fact 
that  the  effects  produced  by  the  action,  depend  not  on  the  action 
alone,  but  on  the  action  and  the  fluid  combined — and  of  course 
may  be  varied  as  the  fluid  or  its  application  varies. 

Let  us  now  take  the  general  idea  of  enveloping  or  immersing 
in  a  fluid,  and  see  how  unlike  the  effects  to  which  it  may  give 
rise. 

If  the  envelopment  is  produced  by  a  flood,  or  torrent,  or  waves, 
the  effect  may  be  to  overwhelm,  to  oppress,  to  destroy. 

If,  by  taking  up  the  object  and  immersing  it  into  a  coloring 
fluid,  it  is  to  impart  a  new  color,  or  to  dye. 

If  by  taking  up  an  object  and  immersing  it  into  a  cleansing 
fluid — or  by  going  into  a  cleansing  fluid,  the  effect  is  to  purify  or 
cleanse. 

And  on  these  natural  or  material  senses,  may  be  founded  the 
same  number  of  spiritual  or  moral  senses,  by  transferring  the 
ideas  to  the  mind. 


§  4.  PROBABILITIES.  13 

Now  as  a  matter  of  fact  such  transfers  have  taken  place  in 
cognate  and  similar  words. 

I  shall  out  of  many  select  a  few  cases  from  Greek,  Latin, 
English,  and  Hebrew  words,  fully  to  illustrate,  and  clearly  to 
confirm  these  principles,  and  to  show  that  they  are  peculiar  to  no 
language,  but  rest  on  universal  laws  of  the  mind. 

In  Greek,  all  admit  that  the  most  common  sense  of /Sowttw  is  to 
dip,  to  immerse.  I  am  willing  to  admit  that  it  is  the  primitive  sense. 

But  it  is  beyond  all  dispute  that  the  same  word  has  passed 
to  the  meaning  to  dye,  without  any  reference  to  mode.  Great 
efforts  were  once  made  to  deny  this.  But  the  most  intelligent 
Baptists  now  entirely  abandon  this  ground,  and  that  with  the  best 
reason.  And  indeed,  so  far  has  the  word  passed  from  its  original 
sense  that  it-  is  applied  to  coloring  the  surface  of  an  object  by 
gold,  i.  e.  to  gilding.  A  few  examples  out  of  many,  in  so  plain 
a  case,  must  suffice.  In  the  battle  of  the  frogs  and  mice,  a  mouse 
is  represented  as  dyeing  or  coloring  the  lake  with  his  blood — 
s^aitrsTo  aTixari  Xifxv?;.  On  this  there  was  once  a  battle  royal  to 
prove  that  it  could  be  proper  to  speak  of  dipping  a  lake  into  the 
blood  of  a  mouse  ;  and  all  the  powers  of  rhetoric  were  put  in  re- 
quisition to  justify  the  usage.  Hear  now  Dr.  Carson,  inferior  in 
learning  and  research  to  none  of  the  Baptists  :  "  To  suppose  that 
there  is  here  any  extravagant  allusion  to  the  literal  immersion  or 
dipping  of  a  lake,  is  a  monstrous  perversion  of  taste.  The  lake 
is  said  to  be  di/ed,  not  to  be  dipped,  or  pioured,  or  sprinkled. 
There  is  in  the  word  no  reference  to  mode.  Had  Baptists  entrench- 
ed themselves  here,  they  would  have  saved  themselves  much  use- 
less toil,  and  much  false  criticism,  without  straining  to  the  impeach- 
ment of  their  candor  or  their  taste.  What  a  monstrous  paradox  in 
rhetoric  is  the  figuring  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a 
mouse  !  Yet  Dr.  Gale  supposes  that  the  lake  was  dipped  by  hy- 
perbole. The  literal  sense  he  says  is,  the  lake  was  dipped  in 
blood.  Never  was  there  such  a  figure.  The  lake  is  not  said  to 
be  dipped  in  blood,  but  to  be  dyed  ivith  blood."  p.  48,  last 
American  edition.     This  is  well  said,  and  is  the  more  to  our 


14  ANALOGOUS    FACTS.  §  4. 

purpose  on  account  of  its  author.  Indeed  his  whole  discussion 
of  this  point  is  able,  lucid,  and  decisive.  Of  the  examples 
adduced  by  him  I  shall  quote  one  or  two  more. 

"  Hippocrates  employs  it  to  denote  dyeing,  by  dropping  the  dye- 
ing liquid  on  the  thing  dyed  :  s-Trsit^av  ziiidra^ji  siri  ra  ijxaTja  fBccTt- 
rsrui :  '  When  it  drops  upon  the  garments  they  are  dyed.'  This 
surely  is  not  dyeing  by  dipping."  Carson,  p.  44. 

"  Again.  In  Arrian — Expedition  of  Alexander  :  <rouj  §s  <7rw- 
yuvag  \sysi  Nsap-)(og  oVj  /Sa-Tr-rwvrai  I'v^oj  :  '  Nearchus  relates  that 
the  Indians  dye  their  beards.'  It  will  not  -be  contended  that  they 
dyed  their  beards  by  immersion."     p.  44. 

He  quotes  cases  in  which  it  is  used  to  describe  the  coloring  of 
the  hair  ;  the  staining  of  a  garment  by  blood  ;  the  staining  of  the 
hand  by  crushing  a  coloring  substance  in  it ;  for  which,  and  others 
of  a  like  kind,  I  refer  to  him,  and  to  Prof.  Stuart. 

In  the  compounds  and  derivatives  of  this  word  the  sense  to  dye 
is  very  extensive ;  to  be  fully  satisfied  of  which,  let  any  one  ex- 
amine the  Thesaurus  of  H.  Stephens,  or  the  abbreviation  of  it  by 
Scapula  on  this  word. 

It  is  compounded  with  colors  of  all  kinds,  as  ifop(pvpso(3a(p'r)g 
uaxi\i&mf3a(prig,  of  a  purple  or  a  hyacinthine  dye.  It  denotes  a 
dyer,  a  dyeing  vat,  a  dye-house,  etc.,  ^acpsvs  (BacpsTov,  etc.,  and  it 
even  passes,  as  before  stated,  to  cases  in  which  a  new  color  is 
produced  by  the  external  application  of  a  solid,  as  xpu(j'o?a(p*)f, 
colored  with  gold,  or  gilded. 

But  it  is  needless  to  quote  at  large  all  the  examples  which 
might  be  adduced  to  illustrate  and  confirm  these  points ;  and  as 
all  that  I  claim  is  conceded  even  by  our  Baptist  brethren,  to  pro- 
ceed further  would  seem  like  an  attempt  at  useless  display.  I 
shall  therefore  proceed  to  consider  the  usages  of  a  kindred  word 
in  the  Latin  lano-uage. 

Tingo,  beyond  all  doubt,  means  to  immerse.  In  this  sense 
Facciolatus  and  Forcellinus,  in  their  Totius  Latinitatis  Lexicon, 
give  /^a'TTTw  as  its  synonyme.  And  as  /Ha-Trrw  is  used  to  describe 
the  immersing  of  an  axe  to  temper  it,  so  is  tingo,  to  describe  simi- 


§  4.  ANALOGOUS    FACTS.  15 

lar  operations.  So  Virgil,  speaking  of  the  operations  of  the  Cyclo- 
pean workmen  of  Vulcan,  thus  describes  them  as  immersing  the 
hissing  metals  in  water  to  temper  them,  "  Stridentia  tingunt  sera 
lacu."  M.  viii.  450.     They  dip  the  hissing  brass  in  the  lake. 

So  speaking  of  a  sword.  He  had  dipped  the  sword  in  Stygian 
water.  "  Tinxerat  unda  stygia  ensem."  M.  xii.  91.  Celsus 
speaks  of  sponges  dipped  in  vinegar.    "  Spongia  in  aceto  tincta." 

The  setting  of  the  heavenly  bodies  is  spoken  of  as  an  immer- 
sion in  the  sea,  and  to  describe  this  tingo  is  used : 

"  Tingere  se  oceano  properant  soles  hyberni."  Virg.  Georg. 
ii.  481.     The  winter  suns  haste  to  dip  themselves  in  the  ocean. 

"  Tingat  equos  gurgite  Phoebus,"  M..  xi.  914.  Phoebus  dips 
his  horses  in  the  deep. 

But  to  prove  that  it  means  immerse  is  needless ;  no  one  can 
deny  it,  nor  is  it  the  point  at  which  I  chiefly  aim.  This  is,  that 
like  jSa-TTTw,  it  loses  all  reference  to  the  act  of  immersion,  and 
comes  to  signify  simply  to  dye  or  color  in  any  way. 

Of  this  there  is  a  presumptive  proof  that  is  obvious  even  to 
those  who  do  not  understand  the  learned  languages.  It  has  given 
rise  to  the  words  tinge  and  tint  in  our  language — and  who  that 
speaks  of  the  rosy  tints  of  morn,  or  of  the  sun  tinging  the  clouds 
with  golden  light,  would  have  the  least  thought  of  immersion  ? 
And  is  it  probable  that  such  senses  would  have  passed  from  the 
'Latin  to  our  language,  had  tingo  not  passed  from  its  original 
sense  to  that  of  dyeing  or  coloring  in  any  mode  1 

But  there  is  direct  proof  in  the  Latin  classics  of  the  same  kind 
as  exists  with  respect  to  /Sa'Trrw. 

Horace  uses  the  word  to  denote  the  dyeing  of  wool,  as  "  tingere 
lanas  murice  ;"  Ovid,  to  denote  the  coloring  of  the  hair  and  of 
ivory ;  Horace,  to  denote  the  coloring  of  the  axe  used  in  sacri- 
ficing the  victims,  as  "  victima  pontificum  secures  cervice  tinget ;" 
Virgil,  Geor.  iii.  v.  492,  to  denote  the  malignant  effects  of  a 
plague  on  cattle,  mentions  that  they  had  scai'ce  blood  enough  left 
to  color  the  knives  used  to  slay  them. 

Vix  suppositi  tinguntur  sanguine  cultri. 


16  ANALOGOUS    FACTS.  §  4. 

So  in  Georg.  ii.  v.  8.  We  have  the  words  "  Tinge  crura  musto," 
referring  to  the  coloring  or  staining  of  the  legs  by  the  treading  of 
the  wine-press.  In  Pliny  we  have  "  Tingentium  officinse,"  shops  of 
dyers,  and  in  Cicero,  Tincta,  in  the  phrase  "  tincta  absint,"  to  denote 
colored  things.  It  is  followed  by  an  accusative  of  the  color,  as  in 
Pliny  "  tingere  cceruleum,"  to  dye  blue.  We  have  also  in  Lucre- 
tius, "  Loca  lumine  tingunt  nubes" — to  tinge  or  color,  that  is  to 
illuminate  with  light.  See  Forcellinus  and  Facciolatus,  or  Leve- 
rett's  Lexicon,  on  the  word. 

Indeed  on  this  word  no  less  than  on  ^a'trro)  we  have  the  une- 
quivocal concession  of  Dr.  Carson,  that  it  means  to  dye.  "  In 
Latin  also,  the  same  word,  tingo,  signifies  both  to  dip  and  to  dye." 
Carson,  p.  54. 

Facciolatus  and  Forcellinus,  and  Leverett,  also  give  it  the 
sense  to  moisten,  to  wet,  and  make  it  in  this  sense  synonymous 
with  rsy'y(ji — from  which  indeed  it  is  derived,  and  to  my  mind  the 
examples  adduced  are  abundantly  sufficient  to  establish  this  sense. 
But  on  this  it  is  needless  to  insist,  as  Dr.  Carson  professes  not  to 
be  satisfied  that  this  sense  can  be  established,  and  for  the  present 
I  wish  to  rely  on  facts  concerning  which  there  is  no  dispute. 

In  English,  for  the  sake  of  contrast,  I  shall  select  the  word  to 
wash. 

The  original  and  common  idea  of  this  word  is,  undeniably,  to 
cleanse  by  a  purifying  fluid,  as  water — and  that,  without  respect 
to  mode.  Of  these  ideas  in  its  progress  it  drops  all,  and  assumes 
a  meaning  that  involves  neither  to  purify,  nor  to  use  a  fluid 
at  all. 

As  washing  is  often  performed  by  a  superficial  application  of 
a  fluid,  it  often  assumes  this  sense  and  loses  entirely  the  idea  of 
cleansing,  as  when  we  speak  of  washing  a  wound  with  brandy  : 
or  with  some  cooling  application,  to  alleviate  inflammation.  In 
this  case  we  aim  not  at  cleansing  but  at  medicinal  effect.  So  we 
can  speak  of  the  s^a  as  washing  the  shores  or  rocks,  denoting 
not  cleansing,  but  the  copious  superficial  application  of  a  fluid. 

Again,   as  a  superficial  application  of  a   fluid  or  a  coloring 


§4.  ANALOGOUS    FACTS.  17 

mixture  is  often  made  for  the  sake  of  changing  the  color,  we 
ha.ve  to  white-wash,  to  red-wash,  to  yellow-wash  ;  and  the  sub- 
stances or  fluid  mixtures  with  which  this  is  done,  are  called 
washes. 

Next  it  drops  the  idea  of  a  fluid  at  all,  and  assumes  the  sense 
of  a  superficial  application  of  a  solid — as  to  wash  with  silver  or 
gold. 

And  here  a  remarkable  coincidence  in  result,  in  words  of 
meaning  originally  unlike,  deserves  notice,  as  a  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  progress  of  the  mind  in  effecting  such  changes. 

In  Greek,  /DaTrrw  denotes  originally  to  immerse — action  alone, 
without  reference  to  effect.  In  English  wash  denotes  to  cleanse 
or  purify  alone,  without  reference  to  mode.  Yet  by  the  opera- 
tion of  the  laws  of  association,  both  are  used  to  denote  coloring, 
and  both  to  denote  covering  superficially  with  silver  or  gold. 

Finally,  when  we  speak  of  the  wash  of  a  cow-yard,  and  call 
those  places  where  deposits  of  earth  or  filth,  or  vegetable  matter, 
are  made,  washes,  who  will  contend  that  the  idea  of  purity  is 
retained  ? 

Again,  lusiro  denotes  to  purify,  by  certain  religious  rites,  and 
especially  by  carrying  around  the  victim  previously  to  its  being 
killed. 

From  this  it  passes  to  the  idea  of  passing  around  or  through — 
dropping  the  idea  of  purifying — as  "  Pythagoras  Egyptum  lustra- 
vit."  Cicero — Pythagoras  traversed  Egypt ;  "  Navibus  lustrandum 
sequor."    Virg. — the  ocean  to  be  traversed  with  ships. 

Hence  it  passes  to  the  idea  of  observing,  surveying,  accurately 
examining,  either  with  the  eyes  or  the  mind.  "  Totum  lustrabat 
lumine  corpus,"  Virg.  He  scrutinized,  or  examined  his  whole 
body  with  his  eyes.  "Cum  omnia  ratione  animoque  lustraris," 
when  you  shall  have  surveyed  and  accurately  examined  all  things 
by  your  reason  and  in  your  mind. 

And  what  wider  departure  from  the  original  sense  to  purify  is 
possible  ?  In  Leveret  xa^a^o'i^  is  given  as  a  synonyme  of  lus- 
tratio,  and  yet  the  same  word  is  used  to  denote  travelling  from 


18  PROSABILITIES    AS    TO    BAHTIZQ.  §  5* 

city  to  city.  "Lustratio  municipiorum" — also  the  course  or  cir- 
cuit of  the  sun — "  lustratio  solis." 

So  too  in  Ezek.  xxiii :  15.  p^to  to  immerse  is  used  to  denote 
dyeing — where  D'^''"'^5'"J  denotes  dyed  attire,  as  Dr.  Carson  also 
allows. 

Similar  transitions  of  meaning  could  be  pointed  out  in  lavo 
055  and  C]tc-d  and   other  words,  were  it  at  all  necessary,  and  did 

time  allow. 

Now  with  such  facts  before  us,  to  increase  the  number  of  which 
indefinitely,  were  perfectly  easy,  who  can  say  that  there  is  the 
slightest  improbability  in  the  idea  that  the  word  /SaTrn'^w  should 
pass  from  the  sense  to  immerse,  to  the  sense  to  purify,  without 
reference  to  the  mode  1  Can  (docn'Tu,  tingo,  and  wash,  pass  through 
similar  transitions,  and  cannot  (SantTi^c,)  ? 

But  what  secondary  sense  shall  be  adopted  cannot  be  told 
a  priori,  but  must  be  decided  by  the  habits,  manners,  customs,  and 
general  ideas  of  a  people,  and  sometimes  by  peculiar  usages  for 
which  no  reason  can  be  given.  For  example,  no  reason  exists  in 
the  nature  of  things  why  I3a<tru  rather  than  /Sa-n-r/^w  should  pass 
from  the  sense  immerse  to  the  sense  to  dye — yet  there  is  evidence 
that  it  did.  On  the  other  hand,  it  could  not  be  certainly  foretold 
that  /dcc-ttti^w  rather  than  /ScfTTTw  would  pass  to  the  sense  to  cleanse, 
and  yet  that  it  did  so  pass  may  still  be  true,  and  if  true,  can  be 
proved  like  any  other  fact. 

And  the  existence  of  manners  and  customs  tending  to  such  a 
result,  renders  such  a  result  probable. 

§  5.      ProhcibUilies  as  to  (Ba'^^i^u). 

Circumstances  did  exist  tending  to  produce  such  a  transfer  of 
meaning  in  f^airri^o),  and  therefore  there  is  a  strong  probability 
that  it  was  made. 

As  it  regards  (SditTUi  and  tingo  we  have  no  proof  that  any  peculiar 
causes  existed  tending  to  such  a*  change  of  meaning  as  they  are 
confessed  to  have  actually  undergone. 

But  as  it  regards  (Sairri^u,  such   a  tendency  can  be  proved  to 


§  6.  PROBABILITIES    FROM    THE    SUBJECT.  19 

have  existed  in  the  manners  and  customs  of  the  Jews,  for  though 
no. immersions  of  the  person  were  enjoined  in  the  Mosaic  ritual, 
but  simply  washings  of  the  body,  or  flesh,  in  any  way,  yet  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  immersions  and  bathings  were  in  daily  use — 
and  these,  as  w^ell  as  all  their  other  washings,  were  solely  for  the 
sake  of  purity,  and  held  up  this  idea  daily  before  the  mind. 

Hence,  when  after  the  conquests  of  Alexander,  the  Greek  Ian- 
guage  began  to  be  spoken  by  the  Jews,  it  encountered  a  tendency 
of  the  same  kind  as  that  which  had  already  changed  the  meaning 
of  (3airru  to  color  or  dye  ;  but  far  more  definite,  powerful,  and 
all-pervading  ;  for  the*  practice  of  immersing  to  color  was  limited 
to  a  few,  but  the  practice  of  bathing  or  immersing  to  purify,  was 
common  to  a  whole  nation.  Indeed  the  idea  of  purification  from 
uncleanness  pervaded  their  whole  ritual,  in  numberless  cases,  and 
must  have  been  perfectly  familiar  to  ihe  mind  of  every  one. 

The  inference  from  these  facts  is  so  obvious  that  it  hardly 
needs  to  be  stated.  As  the  laws  of  the  mind  made  from  (SaifTc^, 
to  dye,  to  color,  to  paint,  and  from  tingo,  the  same ;  so  there  is  a 
very  strong  presumption  that  so  general  a  use  of  immersion,  to 
produce  purity,  would  give  to  [Ba'n'ri^c^  the  corresponding  sense,  to 
purify.  This  does  not,  I  am  aware,  prove  that  it  did.  But  it 
opens  the  way  for  such  proof,  and  shows  that  there  is  not  the  least 
ground  for  the  vigorous  efforts  that  are  made  to  set  it  aside. 

Even  a  moderate  degree  of  proof  is  sufficient  in  a  case  like  this, 
when  the  most  familiar  laws  of  the  mind  and  all  the  power  of  pre- 
sumptive evidence  from  analogical  cases  tends  this  way. 

§  6.     ProhaUUties  from  the  subject. 

There  is  no  probability  a  priori  against  this  position  from  the 
general  nature  of  the  subject  to  which  the  word  is  applied,  in  the 
rite  of  Baptism.  But  the  probability  is  decidedly  and  strongly  in 
its  favor. 

No  law  of  philology  is  more  firmly  established  than  this,  that 
in  the  progress  of  society,  new  ideas  produce  new  words  and  new 
senses  of  old  words,  and  hence  in  judging  concerning  such   new 


20  PHILOLOGICAL    PRINCIPLES.  §  "7. 

senses  we  are  to  look  at  the  nature  of  the  new  subjects  of  thought 
that  arise. 

Now  that,  in  this  case,  the  Greek  language  was  applied  to  a 
new  subject  of  thought  is  most  plain,  and  that  subject  is  the  pecu- 
liar operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  for  that  the  ordinance  of  Bap- 
tism refers  to  these  is  admitted  by  all. 

Hence  if  any  external  act  had  any  peculiar  fitness  to  present 
these  to  the  mind,  a  presumption  would  be  in  favor  of  that  act ; 
and  if  the  meaning  claimed  by  me  was  unfit  to  present  them  to 
the  mind,  there  would  be  a  presumption  against  it. 

But  so  far  is  this  from  being  the  fact,  that  directly  the  reverse 
is  true.  What  is  the  peculiar  effect  of  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  the  mind  ?     Is  it  not  moral  cleansing  or  purification  ? 

But  no  word  denoting  merely  a  mode  of  applying  a  fluid  to  a 
thing,  or  of  putting  anything  into  a  fluid,  conveys  of  itself  any 
such  idea.  To  pour,  sprinkle,  immerse,  or  dip,  convey  in  them- 
selves no  idea  at  all  of  cleansing.  The  effect  of  the  action  de- 
pends mainly  on  the  fluid,  not  on  the  action,  and  may  be  either 
to  purify  or  to  pollute.  If  clean  water  is  used,  the  effect  is  to 
purify.  If  filthy  water  is  used,  the  effect  is  to  pollute.  So  Job 
says,  "  If  I  wash  myself  with  snow-water  and  make  my  hands 
never  so  clean,  yet  shalt  thou  plunge  me  [Greek  ^aitri^.  Heb. 
^5t3]  in  the  ditch,  and  my  own  clothes  shall  abhor  me."  Here 
the  effect  of  plunging  is  pollution,  because  it  is  not  into  clean 
water  but  into  filthy.  Hence,  no  external  act  has  in  itself  any 
fitness  to  present  to  the  mind  the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

On  the  other  hand  to  wash,  to  purify,  to  cleanse,  all  direct  the 
mind  to  the  very  thing  done  by  the  Holy  Spirit — hence  the  pre- 
sumption is  entirely  against  the  supposition  that  the  word  denotes 
an  external  act,  and  in  favor  of  the  meaning  claimed. 

§  7.    Philological  principles. 

There  is  decided  philological  proof  in  favor  of  this  view.  This 
I  shall  soon  proceed  to  adduce.     But  the  course  which  the  argu- 


§  7.  PHILOLOGICAL    PKINCIPLES.  21 

ment  has  too  often  taken,  renders  it  necessary  to  make  a  few 
remarks  on  the  principles  of  the  reasoning  involved. 

It  is  commonly  the  case,  that  after  proving  that  there  are  clear 
instances  in  which  fBwTrTi^o)  means  to  immerse,  it  is  assumed  that 
it  is  violently  improbable  that  it  ever  means  anything  else,  and 
that,  if  it  can  but  be  shown  that  in  a  given  passage  it  can  possibly 
mean  immerse,  no  more  is  needed,  so  that  the  main  force  of  argu- 
ment is  not  to  prove  that  it  does  so  mean  from  the  exigency  of  the 
place,  but  that  it  may  possibly  so  mean,  and,  therefore,  in  conse- 
quence of  its  meaning  so  in  other  places,  it  does  so  here. 

Prof.  Ripley  reasons  on  these  principles  in  his  reply  to  Prof. 
Stuart,  but  Dr.  Carson  has  more  boldly  and  fully  developed  them 
than  any  writer  on  that  side  of  the  question  with  whom  I  am 
acquainted.  He  goes  so  far  as  to  say,  pp.  72,  73,  that  when 
one  meaning  of  a  word  is  proved  by  sufficient  evidence,  no  objec- 
tions to  retaining  this  meaning  in  other  places  can  be  admitted  as 
decisive,  except  they  involve  an  impossibility.  This  he  says  is 
self-evident,  and  lays  it  down  as  a  canon  ;  and  affirms,  p.  70, 
that  the  man  who  does  not  perceive  the  justness  of  his  positions 
is  not  worth  reasoning  with.  Now  that  there  is  not  the  least 
ground  for  assuming  the  improbability  of  the  meaning  to  purify, 
nay  that  the  probability  is  decidedly  in  its  favor,  I  have  clearly 
shown.  Of  course  to  show  that  in  a  given  case  /SaTTTj^w  can 
possibly  mean  immerse  is  nothing  to  the  point.  The  question  is, 
what  is  its  fair,  natural,  and  obvious  sense  in  the  case  in  question, 
not  what  it  can  possibly  by  any  stretch  of  ingenuity  be  made  to 
mean. 

Of  old  it  was  customary  in  the  same  way  to  try  to  prove  that 
/Da-TTTw  does  not  mean  to  dye,  because  some  other  sense  is  possible 
or  conceivable — and  as  we  have  seen.  Gale  even  goes  so  far  as 
to  maintain,  that  a  lake  is  spoken  of  as  figuratively  dipped  in  the 
blood  of  a  mouse — lest  1^  should  be  obliged  to  admit  the  obvious 
sense  that  the  lake  was  dyed,  colored,  or  tinged,  with  the  blood 
of  a  mouse. 

But  this  mode  of  reasoning,  as  it  regards  /Sa-TrTw,  is  at  last 


22  A    QUESTION    ABOUT    PURIFYING.  §  8. 

candidly  and  fairly  given  up — and  may  we  not  hope  that  the 
same  candor  will  at  length  lead  to  the  same  results  in  the  case  of 
the  cognate  word  (BaifTi^u  ? 

It  may  be  further  observed  that  the  reasoning  of  philology  is 
not  demonstrative,  but  moral  and  cumulative  ;  and  that  an  ulti- 
mate result  depends  upon  the  combined  impression  of  all  the  facts 
of  a  given  case  as  a  whole — on  the  principle  that  the  view,  which 
best  harmonizes  all  the  facts,  and  falls  in  with  the  known  laws  of 
the  human  mind,  is  true. 

And  where  many  and  separate  and  independent  facts  all  tend 
with  different  degrees  of  probability  to  a  common  result,  there  is 
an  evidence,  over  and  above  the  evidence  furnished  by  each  case 
by  itself,  in  the  coincidence  of  so  many  separate  and  independent 
probabilities  in  a  common  result.  And  to  be  able  to  prove  that 
each  may  be  explained  otherwise,  and  is  not  in  itself  a  demon- 
stration, cannot  break  the  force  of  the  fact,  that  so  many  separate 
and  independent  probabilities  all  tend  one  way.  The  probability 
produced  by  such  coincidences  is  greater  than  the  sum  of  the 
separate  probabilities :  it  has  the  force  of  the  fact  that  they  coin- 
cide— and  that  the  assumption  of  the  truth  of  the  meaning  in 
which  they  all  coincide,  is  the  only  mode  of  explaining  the  coin- 
cidence. 

That  there  are  various  independent  proofs,  that  (BarrTl^ui  as  a 
religious  term  means  to  purify,  and  that  these  all  coincide,  and 
that  this  view  harmonizes  and  explains  all  the  facts  of  the  case, 
I  shall  now  attempt  to  show. 

§  8.    A  question  about  'purifying. 

In  John  iii.  25,  xa^a^jfTuxoff  is  used  as  synonymous  with  iSwTfTKf. 
liog,  and  thus  the  usus  loquendi,  as  it  regards  the  religious  rite, 
is  clearly  decided. 

The  facts  of  the  case  are  these,  vs.  22,  23.  John  and  Jesus 
were  baptizing,  one  in  Judea,  the  other  in  jEnon,  near  to  Salim, 
and  in  such  circumstances  that  to  an  unintelligent  observer  there 


§  8,  A    QUESTION    ABOUT    PURIFYING.  23 

would  seem  to  be  a  rivalry  between  the  claims  of  the  two.  The 
disciples  of  John  might  naturally  feel  that  Jesus  was  intruding 
into  the  province  of  their  master.  They  might  even  believe  John 
to  be  the  Messiah,  and  thus  give  rise  to  the  sect  which  held  that 
belief.  On  this  point  a  dispute  arose  between  the  disciples  of 
John  and  the  Jews  (or  a  Jew,  as  many  copies  read),  v.  25. 

They  come  to  John  and  state  the  case,  v.  26.  "  Rabbi,  he 
that  was  with  thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  bearest  witness, 
behold  the  same  haptizeth,  and  all  men  come  to  liim.^^  Plainly  im- 
plying that  in  so  doing  he  was  improperly  interfering  with  the 
claims  of  John.  "' 

John  in  reply,  v.  27 — 31,  disclaims  all  honor  except  that  be- 
stowed on  him  by  God,  of  being  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah, 
and  rejoices  to  decrease  in  order  that  he  may  increase — thus 
justifying  the  course  which  was  so  offensive  to  his  disciples,  and 
settling  the  dispute  in  favor  of  the  claims  of  Christ. 

The  argument  from  these  facts  is  this :  The  dispute  in  question 
was  plainly  a  specific  dispute  concerning  baptism,  as  practised  by 
Jesus  and  John,  and  not  a  general  dispute  on  the  subject  of  puri- 
fication at  large  ;  so  that  ^yirr^dig  its^i  (BwrrTia^oU  is  the  true  sense  ; 
and  if  it  had  been  so  written,  the  passage  would  have  been 
regarded  by  all  as  perfectly  plain. 

But  instead  of  (SaitrKfij.ov,  John  has  used  xa^a^jrffxou,  because 
the  sense  is  entirely  the  same.  In  other  words,  "  a  question  con- 
cerning baptism,"  and  "  a  question  concerning  purification,"  were 
at  that  time  modes  of  expression  perfectly  equivalent ;  that  is, 
^aitTi(fii6g  is  a  synonyme  of  xa^a^itf/xo^. 

The  only  mode  of  escaping  this  result  is  to  say,  that  as  im- 
mersion in  water  involves  purification,  and  is  a  kind  of  purifica- 
tion, so  it -may  have  given  rise  to  a  question  on  the  subject  of 
purification  at  large  ;  but  to  this  I  reply,  that  the  whole  scope  of 
the  passage  forbids  such  an  idea.  The  question  was  not  general 
but  specific,  being  caused  by  the  concurrence  of  two  claims  to 
baptize  ;  and  so  was  the  reply  of  John. 

Moreover,  to  assume  a  general  dispute  on  purification  renders 


24  A    QUESTION    ABOUT    PURIFYING.  §  9. 

the  whole  scope  of  the  passage  obscure  ;  as  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  those  who  have  not  seen  that  in  this  case  xa^a^itfjxoj  is  a 
synonyme  of  (BaimCixos,  are  much  perplexed  to  see  what  a  dispute 
on  purification  in  general,  has  to  do  with  the  facts  of  the  case. 

The  origin  of  the  dispute  from  the  concurrence  of  two  claims 
to  baptize,  is  obviously  indicated  by  the  particle  ouv  in  v.  25, 
showing  undeniably  that  the  events  just  narrated  gave  rise  to  the 
question.  This  connexion  does  not  appear  in  our  translation,  and 
hence  the  course  of  thought  is  somewhat  obscured. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  independently  of  all  theories  or  interests, 
oca&oi^ic'iiog  is  used  as  synonymous  with  (SairrKJixog.  Assigning 
this  meaning  makes  the  passage  natural,  lucid,  and  simple  ;  to 
assume  a  general  debate  on  purification  at  large,  renders  it  forced 
and  obscure,  and  the  reply  of  John  totally  irrelevant. 

And  what  reason  is  there  for  denying  this  conclusion  ?  None 
but  the  fear  of  the  result.  No  law  of  language  requires  it — no 
existing  fact — no  previous  probability.  These,  as  we  have 
shown,  are  all  decidedly  the  other  way.  It  is  then  of  no  avail  to 
talk  of  possible  senses.  The  question  is  not  what  is  possible, 
but  what  is  a  rational  inference  from  a  fair  view  of  the  facts  of 
the  case  ;  and  this  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  is,  that  (Sa'jfrKfixos  and 
xa&a^Kflx6g  are  synonymous. 

I  have  spoken  the  more  at  large  on  this  case,  because  it  is  so 
rarely  referred  to  in  arguments  on  this  question,  and  because  the 
light  which  it  throws  on  the  usus  loquendi  is  peculiarly  clear. 

No  word  is  more  entirely  independent  of  all  reference  to 
modes  and  forms  than  xai^a^i  Jw,  and  nothing  can  more  clearly 
show  that  ^a-TT'Ti^w  had  dropped  all  reference  to  form,  and  as- 
sumed the  sense  to  purify  or  cleanse,  than  making  it  a  synonyme 
of  xa&a^i^(jj.  And  the  evidence  is  the  more  striking,  as  it  is  inci- 
dental and  undesigned.  It  is  as  if  we  could  stand  on  the  plains 
of  Judea  and  hear  them  interchange  BaTtTKfixos  and  xa6a^Kfy.6g  as 
synonymous  words.* 

*  For  ample  confirmation  of  this  view,  by  the  Fathers,  and  others,  see 
&  67,  No.  1  and  5. 


§  9.  PROPHECIES OLD    TESTAMENT.  25 

But  if  this  is  the  force  of  the  word  in  one  instance  as  a  re- 
ligious rite,  then  it  is  its  force  in  all  similar  cases. 

§  9.     Prophecies — Old  Testament. 

This  view  alone  fully  explains  the  existing  expectation  that  the 
Messiah  would  baptize. 

That  the  Messiah  should  immerse  is  nowhere  foretold ;  but 
that  he  should  purify,  is  often  and  fully  predicted. 

But  especially  is  this  foretold  in  that  last  and  prominent  prophecy 
of  Malachi  (iii.  1 — 3),  which  was  designed  to  fill  the  eye  and  the 
mind  of  the  nation,  until  he  came. 

He  is  here  presented  to  the  mind  in  all  his  majesty  and  power, 
but  amid  all  other  ideas  that  of  purifying  is  most  prominent.  He 
was  above  all  things  to  purify  and  purge,  and  that  with  power  so 
great,  that  ievf  could  endure  the  fiery  day.  Who  may  abide  the 
day  of  his  coming,  and  who  shall  stand  when  he  appeareth  ? 

Suppose  now  the  word  /^a'Trr/^w  to  mean  as  I  affirm — the  whole 
nation  are  expecting  the  predicted  purifier  ;  all  at  once  the  news 
goes  forth  that  a  great  purifier  has  appeared,  and  that  all  men 
flock  to  him  and  are  purified  in  the  Jordan.  How  natural  the  in- 
ference !  The  great  purifier  so  long  foretold,  has  at  last  appear- 
ed, and  how  natural  the  embassy  of  the  Priests  and  Levites  to  in- 
quire who  art  thou  ?  and  when  he  denied  that  he  was  the  Mes- 
siah, or  either  of  his  expected  attendants,  how  natural  the  in- 
quiry, why  purifiest  thou  then  ?  It  is  his  work — of  him  it  is 
foretold,  why  dost  thou  intrude  into  his  place  and  do  his  work  ? 

In  view  of  these  facts  I  do  not  hesitate  to  believe  most  fully, 
that  the  idea  which  came  up  before  the  mind  of  the  Jews  when 
the  words  Iwavv>]^  o  (^aitridrrig  were  used,  was  not,  John  the  im- 
merser,  or  John  the  dipper,  but  John  the  purifier,  a  name  pecu- 
liarly appropriate  to  him  as  a  reformer — as  puritan  was  to  our 
ancestors,  and  for  the  same  reason. 

This  view  has  to  my  own  mind  the  self-evidencing  power  of 
truth,  for  there  is  not  the  slightest  presumption  against  it ;  all 
probable  evidence  is  in  its  favor  ;  and  it  explains  and  harmonizes 

2 


26  BAPTISRI    OF    WATER    AND    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  §  10. 

the  facts  of  the  case  as  no  other  view  does.  Indeed  I  can  never 
read  the  account  of  John's  baptism,  and  his  various  replies,  with- 
out feeling  that  this  passage  from  Malachi  gives  color  to  them 
all.*  This  idea  I  shall  consider  more  at  large  in  the  following 
section. 

§  10.     Baptism  of  Water  and  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  contrast  made  by  John  between  his  own  baptism  and  that 
of  Christ,  illustrates  and  confirms  the  same  view. 

This  contrast  exists  in  three  particulars — the  subject,  the 
agent,  and  the  means. 

In  the  case  of  John,  the  subject  was  the  body — in  the  case  of 
Christ,  the  mind. 

In  the  case  of  John,  the  agent  was  material,  i.  e.  a  man — in 
the  case  of  Christ,  the  agent  was  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  case  of 
John,  the  means  were  water — in  the  case  of  Christ,  the  truth  and 
the  emotions  of  God. 

Now  the  idea  to  purify  is  perfectly  adapted  to  illustrate  and 
carry  out  such  a  contrast,  but  to  immerse  is  not. 

This  sense  is  never  transferred  to  the  mind,  in  any  language, 
so  far  as*  I  know,  to  indicate  anything  like  the  effects  of  the 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Where  oppressive,  crushing,  painful,  or  injurious  influences  are 
denoted,  it  is  so  transferred — as  i^v^iaig  (p^ovritfiv  (Bz^aitnd^jAvog  rhv 
vouv. — Chrysosiom.  fSa^vTaraig  aixa^Tiaig  (SsQwn'TKfi^svoi. — Idem. 
'jroWoTg  xv^acfi  cr^a/ixaTwv  ^s^aitTid^ihou — Idem.  But  this  does 
not  denote  the  peculiar  and  appropriate  effects  of  the  agency  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

But  the  sense  to  purify,  can  be  with  ease  applied  to  body 
or  mind,  to  human  agents  or  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  water  or  to  the 
truth  and  divine  influence. 

How  simple  and  natural  the  statement !  "  I  indeed  purify  you 
with  water — but  he  shall  purify  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit."    I  per- 

*  See  §  67,  No.  2,  for  an  unanswerable  defence  of  this  view,  from  the 
Fathers. 


§  10.  BAPTISM    OF    WATER    AND    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  27 

form  an  external  and  symbolical  rite,  by  which  the  body  is 
cleansed  with  water,  but  he  shall  perform  a  higher  cleansing,  or 
that  in  which  the  mind  itself  is  purified  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

And  how  harsh,  how  forced,  how  unnatural  to  say,  I  immerse 
you  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  fine,  such  a  use  of  language  to  de- 
note purification  is  entirely  foreign  to  all  the  laws  of  the  human 
mind. 

Indeed  so  much  is  the  force  of  this  felt,  that  in  this  part  of  the 
antithesis  many  resort  to  a  new  modification  of  the  idea,  and 
maintain  that  it  means  to  imbue  largely,  to  overwhelm  with  di- 
vine influences. 

But  this  destroys  the  whole  symmetry  of  the  antithesis.  John 
does  not  mean  to  say  I  imbue  you  largely  with  water,  but  either, 
I  immerse  you  in  water,  or  I  cleanse  you  with  it,  and  whichever 
sense  we  adopt  in  one  part  of  the  antithesis,  we  ought  to  retain  in 
the  other. 

But  when  the  agent  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  object  the  human 
spirit,  the  means  spiritual,  and  the  end  purity,  the  sense  immer- 
sion is  out  of  the  question.  Nothing  but  the  most  violent  impro- 
bability of  the  sense  to  purify,  can  authorize  us  to  reject  it  in  such 
a  case.  But  no  such  improbability  exists ;  the  probability  is 
entirely  in  its  favor.  Purify,  then,  in  any  view  of  the  subject, 
must  here  be  the  sense. 

This  view  is  still  further  confirmed  by  comparing  the  language 
of  John  with  the  passage  from  Malachi  already  quoted.  It  seems 
to  be  at  all  times  his  great  desire  to  lead  them  to  apply  those 
words  to  Christ,  and  not  to  himself.  As  if  he  had  said,  "  Do  not 
think  that  I  am  the  great  purifier  spoken  of  in  those  words.  Af- 
ter me  Cometh  one  mightier  than  I,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes  I 
am  unworthy  to  loose.  He  shall  purify  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire — whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  shall 
thoroughly  purge  (Siaxa&a^isT)  his  floor,"  etc.  But  all  the  force, 
correspondence,  and  mutual  illumination  of  these  passages,  de- 
pend on  giving  to  the  word  (Saitri^c^  the  sense  which  I  claim. 


28  SACRIFICIAL    SENSE    OF    BAIITIZO.  §  12. 

§  11.     Baptism  of  the  Holy   Spirit. 

In  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  directly  said  to  baptize, 
and  in  this  case  all  external  acts  are  of  course  excluded,  and 
purify  is  the  only  appropriate  sense. 

"  For  by  one  Spirit  we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body,  and  have 
been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit." 

If  any  shall  say  that  admitting  to  the  church  by  the  external 
rite  is  here  meant,  I  reply,  that  is  never  performed  by  the  Spirit, 
but  by  man.  But  this  baptism  is  as  much  an  internal  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  the  causing  to  drink  into  one  Spirit,  which  is 
not  external,  but  an  internal  and  real  work  of  the  Spirit. 

But  to  immerse  in  water  is  not  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
nor  is  it  his  work  to  immerse  the  mind,  but  to  purify  the  mind  is. 
Hence,  not  an  external  union  to  the  visible  Church,  but  a  real 
union  to  the  true  and  spiritual  body  of  Christ  is  here  meant,  one 
which  is  produced  by  the  purification  of  the  mind,  not  by  the  im- 
mersion of  the  body.  Hence  to  describe  the  operations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  uniting  us  to  the  body  of  Christ,  purify  is  adapted 
— immerse  is  not.* 

§  12.     Sacrificial  Sense  of  (Swn'Ti^cjj. 

(SaifTi^cj)  and  xa^a^j^w  are  so  similarly  used  in  connexion  with 
the  forgiveness  of  sins,  as  decidedly  to  favor  the  idea  that  they 
are  in  a  religious  use  synonymous. 

The  purification  effected  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  of  two  kinds — (1) 
a  purification  from  spiritual  defilement ;  (2)  a  deliverance  from 
the  guilt  of  sin,  i.  e.  liability  to  be  punished,  and  from  a  sense  of 
guilt,  through  the  atonement. 

It  is  through  the  atonement  that  pardon  is  given  ;  and  through 
the  Holy  Spirit  conviction  of  sin  is  produced ;  and  by  him  also  a 
sense  of  guilt  is  taken  away  in  view  of  the  atonement ;  and  in 
this  sense  he  is  said  to  cleanse  from  sin  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 

*  For  full  confirmation  of  this  view  see  §  67,  No.  3,  and  §  96. 


§  12.  SACRIFICIAL    SENSE    OF    BAriTlZi2.  29 

This  kind  of  purification  may  be  called  legal,  as  it  relates  to 
guilt,  forgiveness,  and  an  atonement.  The  other  kind  of  purifi- 
cation may  be  called  moral,  inasmuch  as  it  removes  the  unholy 
and  impure  feelings  and  habits  of  the  mind,  and  produces  in  their 
place  those  that  are  holy  and  pure. 

Both  kinds  of  purification  are  expressed  by  the  same  word 
xa^a^j^w.  Its  use  to  denote  legal  purification  or  expiation  is 
very  extensive.  It  denotes,  (1)  to  make  atonement.  As  in 
Ex.  xxix.  37,  and  xxx.  10.  "  Thou  shalt  make  atonement  for 
the  altar,"  "  Aaron  shall  make  atonement ;  Sept.  xa^a^i^w,  Heb. 

(2.)  To  forgive,  Ex.  xx.  7.  "  The  Lord  will  not  liold  him 
guiltless  (ou  xaScc^isT)  that  taketh  his  name  in  vain."  Ex.  xxiv.  7. 
"  That  will  by  no  means  clear  the  guilty."  Deut.  v.  11. — Idem. 
In  these  and  similar  cases  the  Greek  xa^a^i^w  corresponds  to  the 
Hebrew  {i;;d5  to  forgive,  to  absolve  from  punishment,  and  is  used 
in  a  sense  strictly  legal,  and  does  not  refer  to  moral  purity  at  all. 
So  in  1  John  i.  7.  "  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  his  Son  cleanseth 
us  from  all  sin  ;"  and  v.  9,  "He  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us 
our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness."  In  these 
cases  the  idea  of  atonement  and  forgiveness  by  it,  are  involved  in 
xa&a^i^c),  and  in  Heb.  the  blood  of  Christ  is  said  to  purge  the  con- 
science from  dead  works,  implying  a  deliverance  from  a  sense  of 
guilt  and  a  sense  of  pardoned  sin.  Ka^a^i^w  is  here  used ;  hence 
an  atonement  is  called  xa^a^K^p^s  in  Heb.  i.  3.  When  he  had 
by  himself  purged  our  sins  (xa^a^KffjLov  "Tfooitfccixsvoj),  he  sat  down 
on  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty  on  high.  In  this  case  the  atone- 
ment, Jca^a^K^ixoV,  was  made  first,  and  then  applied  to  cleanse  by 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

Nor  is  this  usage  confined  to  Scriptural  Greek ;  we  find  that 
when  Croesus  exempted  Adrastus  from  liability  to  punishment  for 
killing  his  brother,  it  is  said  |x/v  ixa6rj^s — he  purified  him — and 
when  Adrastus  requested  such  exemption,  xa6ap(flov  sSkro  he  re- 
quested expiation — or  exemption  from  liability  to  punishment. 
Among  the  Jews  this  kind  of  purification  was  indicated  by  itJj  ap- 


30  SACRIFICIAL    SENSE    OF    BAIITIZO.  §  12. 

propriate  external  forms,  of  which  the  sprinkling  of  blood  was 
the  most  common — if  not  the  only  one.  Besides  this,  as  all  know, 
xa^a^i'^w  is  used  abundantly  to  denote  moral  purification  or  its 
emblem,  ceremonial  purification — of  which  no  examples  are 
needed. 

Hence  to  a  Jew  it  was  natural  to  apply  to  a  rite  symbolizing 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  the  term  xa&a^Kfixos,  or  some  synonymous 
word. 

Between  immersion,  and  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  no  such  as- 
sociations had  ever  been  established.  For  all  the  remissions  of 
sin  under  the  old  ritual,  were  by  blood,  and  hence  Paul,  Heb.  ix. 
19-2.3,  after  speaking  of  the  sprinkling  of  blood  upon  the 
people  and  the  book,  the  tabernacle  and  the  vessels,  says,  xai 
(f-)(s5ov  iv  aT^au  •navra  xaQa^i^srai  xardl  rov  vo^ov,  xai  XW^<V  ai/xa- 
rsx-)(y(fiois  ou  ylvsrai  acpstfig. 

"  Almost  all  things  are  by  the  law  purified  by  blood,  and  with- 
out shedding  of  hlood  there  is  no  remission  of  sins. ^^  Here  a  rite 
denoting  remission  of  sins,  ly  sprinkling  of  hlood,  is  spoken  of  as 
a  xa&a^Kf^iog,  a  purification.  But  under  the  law,  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  was  never  symbolized  .by  an  immersion  of  the  person 
forgiven.  Hence,  if  any  word  is  used  to  denote  a  rite  symbolical 
of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  in  the  same  way  as  xada^Kf^xog,  it  is 
probably  used  in  the  same  sense.  But  (Sa'Trri^oj  and  its  deriva- 
tives are  so  used.  Mark  i.  4.  "  John  preached  the  Baptism  of 
repentance  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,'" — so  in  Luke  iii.  3.  Also, 
Acts  iii.  38.  "  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost." 

Here  is  a  rite,  symbolizing  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  The  com- 
mon name  for  rites  of  this  import  is  xa^apitfjixo^.  ^airri^cj^  is  used 
to  denote  the  rite.  Immersion  had  never  previously  been  used 
for  any  such  purpose.  How  reasonable,  then,  the  conclusion 
that  foairrKfixog  has  the  same  sense  as  the  word,  whose  familiar 
office  it  performs. 

But  though   Baptism  in  these   places  relates  chiefly  to  legal 


§   12.  SACRIFICIAL    SENSE    OF    BAIITIZa  31 

purification,  in  others  it  relates  as  clearly  to  moral  purifica- 
tion, and  in  this  respect  also  corresponds  with  xa&api^u),  which, 
as  we  have  seen,  includes  both  kinds  of  purification,  legal  and 
moral. 

To  sum  up  all  in  a  few  words,  ^WTfri^u  is  used  in  connexion 
with  both  kinds  of  purification,  legal  and  moral,  of  the  con- 
science and  of  the  heart ;  and  the  language  most  commonly 
applied  to  the  first  is  xa^a/pw  or  xa^apj^w — and  this  is  always  in 
the  ritual  symbolized  by  sprinkling  and  by  blood.  Hence  as 
jSa<7rr»^w  is  used  in  reference  to  the  same  kinds  of  purification 
with  xa^api^w,  and  as  it  stands  in  the  same  relations  with  it  to  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,  it  is  highly  probable  that  it  has  the  same 
sense.  By  giving  it  a  meaning  so  extensive  as  purify,  it  is 
adapted  to  fulfil  all  its  relations.  By  confining  it  to  a  meaning  so 
limited  as  to  immerse,  it  is  unfitted  for  at  least  one  half  the  rela- 
tions in  which  it  stands.* 

*  See  §§  25,  26,  53,  54,  for  a  full  defence  of  this  view. 


[CHAPTER    II. 

§  13.     Mosaic  Purifications. 

In  Heb.  ix.  10,  a  fair  view  of  the  scope  and  connexion  of  the 
passage    requires    (3citri(i[}.oi    to    be    used    as    synonymous  with 

In  this  case  the  word  does  not  indeed  relate  to  the  ordinance  of 
Christian  Baptism,  but  to  Mosaic  purifications.  Yet  it  is  still  a 
religious  use  of  the  word  ;  moreover,  it  is  applied  with  reference 
to  those  very  usages,  of  which  I  have  spoken,  as  adapted  to  cause 
the  word  [SuirTi^u  to  pass  from  its  original,  to  the  secondary 
sense,  to  jmrify.  Hence  it  is  an  example  of  great  weight  in  the 
case,  and,  as  might  have  been  expected,  it  has  been  strongly  con- 
tested.    But  with  how  little  reason  I  shall  endeavor  to  show. 

The  scope  of  chapters  8,  9,  and  10,  is  to  show  that  the  purifica- 
tions, legal  and  moral,  provided  by  Christ  for  the  conscience  and 
the  heart,  had  in  themselves  a  real  efficacy,  and  were,  therefore, 
entirely  superior  to  those  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  which  re- 
lated only  to  the  body,  and  could  produce  no  purity  but  such  as 
was  merely  external  and  symbolical.  Let  now  the  following 
things  be  noticed. 

1.  Those  things  only  are  spoken  of  in  the  whole  discussion, 
which  have  a  reference  to  action  on  the  worshippers — that  is,  the 
whole  passage  relates  to  the  effects  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  entirely 
on  persons,  and  not  on  things.  The  gifts,  the  sacrifices,  the  blood 
of  sprinkling,  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  all  re- 
late to  persons. 

2.  The  /Sa-TT'Tjrfjxoi  are  spoken  of  as  enjoined,  as  well  as  the 
other  rites.  But  of  persons,  no  immersions  at  all  are  enjoined 
under  the  Mosaic  ritual.     As  this  fact  does  not  seem  to  have  been 


§  13.  MOSAIC    PURIFICATIONS.  33 

noticed  as  it  ought,  and  as  many  assume  the  contrary,  it  is  neces- 
sary to  furnish  the  proof  of  this  assertion. 

It  lies  in  this  fact,  that  no  washing  of  persons  is  ever  enjoined 
by  the  word  ^5^3,  to  immerse,  even  in  a  single  instance,  nor  by  any 
word  that  denotes  immersion — but  as  I  think  without  exception 
by  the  word  yii'n,  which  denotes  to  wash  or  imrify,  without  any 
reference  to  mode. 

Those  who  read  the  English  version  might  suppose  that,  where 
the  direction  to  bathe  occurs,  immersion  is  enjoined  ;  but  in  every 
such  case  the  original  denotes  only  to  wash. 

I  do  not  deny  that  where  the  washing  of  the  body,  or  of  the 
flesh,  or  of  all  the  flesh,  is  enjoined,  it  would  probably  be  done,  if 
most  convenient,  by  immersion  or  bathing.  But  I  affirm  that 
there  is  no  washing  of  the  person  enjoined  in  the  whole  ritual, 
which  could  not  be  performed  wherever  there  was  water  enough 
to  wash  the  body  all  over,  in  any  way,  even  though  bathing  or 
immersion  was  out  of  the  question.  Why  should  it  not  be  so  ? 
Could  Moses  suppose  that  at  all  times,  and  in  all  circumstances, 
while  in  the  desert,  during  journeys,  at  home  and  abroad,  every 
man  who  became  unclean,  in  various  and  numerous  ways  speci- 
fied in  the  ritual,  would  be  able  to  bathe  or  to  immerse  himself? 
Even  when  best  supplied  with  the  means  of  bathing  it  could  not 
be  expected,  that  every  family,  rich  or  poor,  and  however  situated, 
would  be  able  to  have  a  private  bath.  Nor  could  it  be  expected, 
that  every  running  stream  or  rivulet  would  be  deep  enough  to 
bathe  in.  But  such  was  the  benign  regard  of  God  to  all  these  pos- 
sible contingencies,  that  he  did  not  enjoin  immersion  at  all ;  but 
in  some  cases  a  total  washing,  such  as  could  be  performed  in  any 
brook,  or  running  stream, — or  in  any  suitable  vessel  at  home. 

If  any  doubt  whether  this  is  the  true  view  of  the  import  of  yni 
let  him  take  a  Hebrew  Concordance  and  trace  it  through  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  he  will  have  abundant  proof. 
He  will  find  it  used  to  denote  the  washing  of  anything,  in 
any  way, — of  the  feet,  the    hands,    the    face,  the   body,  or  the 


34  MOSAIC    PURIFICATIONS.  §  13. 

mind.  Its  translation  in  the  Septuagint  denotes  how  wide  its 
range  of  meaning  is  ; — for  it  is  at  one  time  Xouw,  at  another  viVrw, 
and  at  another  "ttXuvw,  just  as  circumstances  may  seem  to  require. 
If  ever  it  is  applied  in  cases  where  bathing  was  probably  per- 
formed, the  idea  depends  not  at  all  on  the  word,  but  on  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case.  So  a  Baptist  writer  thinks  that,  in  the 
case  of  Pharaoh's  daughter,  Ex.  ii.  5,  the  word  denotes  bathing. 
It  may  be  true  that  the  daughter  of  Pharaoh  did,  as  a  matter  of 
factj  bathe  herself, — but  all  our  evidence  of  it  lies  in  the  fact,  that 
she  went  down  to  the  Nile,  and  not  at  all  in  the  word  yn^,  and 
therefore  our  translators  have  properly  rendered  it  wash. 

I  would  quote  passages  to  illustrate  all  these  assertions,  did  not 
the  proof  lie  so  plainly  on  the  surface  of  the  whole  usage  of  the 
word  that  I  do  not  suppose  any  one,  who  has  investigated  the  sub- 
ject, will  think  of  denying  it.  Let  any  one,  who  desires  to  see  a 
specimen  of  proof,  examine,  in  the  original.  Gen.  xviii.  4,  and  xliii. 
31,  Lev.  xiv.  9,  Ex.  xxix.  17,  Is.  iv.  4,  Ps.  xxvi.  6  and  Ixxiii. 
13,  Is.  i.  16. 

Nor  is  the  washing  of  the  clothes,  so  often  spoken  of,  enjoined 
by  a  word  denoting  immersion.  In  all  such  cases,  D^S  is  used, 
which  denotes  merely  to  wash,  a  word  commonly  confined  to  the 
washing  of  clothes.  But  it  is  sometimes  also  applied  to  the  wash- 
ing of  the  mind,  as  in  Ps.  li.  4,  9  (English  version  Ps.  li.  2,  7), 
Jer.  iv.  14;  ii.  22. 

It  is  perfectly  plain,  therefore,  that,  whatever  was  the  practice 
of  the  Jews,  no  immersions  of  the  person  were  enjoined,  and  the 
whole  Mosaic  ritual,  as  to  personal  ablution,  could  be  fulfilled  to 
the  letter,  without  a  single  immersion.  I  do  not  doubt  that  im- 
mersions were  common,  but  nothing  but  washings  of  the  body  was 
enjoined — and  immersions  fulfilled  the  law,  not  because  they  were 
immersions,  but  solely  because  they  were  washings.  Of  course, 
as  yn^  had  only  the  sense  to  wash,  even  in  case  of  bathing, 
(Bairri^ijj  would  tend  to  the  same. 

8.  Even  where  immersion  was  convenient,  and,  k  priori,  pro- 
bable, it  was  not   deemed  essential  to  complete  and  thorough 


§  13.  MOSAIC    PURIFICATIONS.  35 

purification,  or  to  an  entire  washing  of  the  body.  This  I  infer 
from  the  account  given  in  Tobit  vi.  2,  of  the  washing  of  the 
young  man.  We  are  told  that  he  went  down  to  the  river — To  Ss 
m'aida^iov  xarsfSr] — for  what  ?  To  immerse  himself,  of  course,  the 
advocates  of  immersion  will  reply.  Whole  volumes  of  argument, 
as  we  all  know,  depend  on  going  down  to  a  river.  But  how  was 
it  ?  did  he  go  down  to  immerse  himself  ?  Hear  the  writer  : 
xccTsfSri  'Tfs ^ix\v(f a.(fSai.  He  went  down  to  wash  himself  all  around, 
— ^just  as  a  man  stands  in  the  stream  and  throws  the  water  all 
over  his  body,  and  washes  himself  by  friction ;  a  mode  of  wash- 
ing much  more  thorough  than  a  mere  immersion,  and  corre- 
sponding much  more  nearly  to  the  import  of  the  word  y'n'i 

Let  it  not  be  supposed  that  I  regard  this  as  an  actual  fact. 
The  story  may  be  true  or  false,  and  yet  be  equally  in  point  to 
illustrate  the  ideas  of  the  age  in  which  the  writer  lived.  If  he 
was  a  Jew,  as  all  admit,  and  was  writing  of  Jews,  it  is  enough. 
He  would  of  course  write  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  his  day. 
He  may  indeed,  after  his  irs^ixXvcfig,  be  supposed  to  have  immersed 
himself.  But  he  is  not  represented  as  going  down  for  an 
immersion, — but  for  such  a  washing  as  could  be  performed  in 
any  stream,  even  though  immersion  was  out  of  the  question.  I 
regard  the  incidental  testimony  of  a  case  like  this,  as  of  far  more 
worth  than  tlie  formal  testimony  of  the  Rabbis  of  a  later  age,  as 
to  the  importance  attached,  by  the  Jews,  to  immersion,  which 
learned  writers  have  so  copiously  adduced.  For  the  testimony 
of  later  Jews,  as  to  the  times  preceding  the  fall  of  Jerusalem, 
needs  to  be  received  with  much  doubt  and  suspicion.  But  on  an 
incidental  statement  of  this  kind,  of  so  early  a  date,  no  reasonable 
suspicion  can  rest. 

4.  The  only  immersions  enjoined  in  the  Mosaic  law  were  im- 
mersions of  things  to  which  no  reference  can  be  had  here, — as 
vessels,  sacks,  skins,  etc.  In  this  case  no  act  was  performed, 
that  directly  affected  the  body  of  the  worshipper,  but  only  the  thing 
immersed.  But  in  all  this  passage,  Paul  regards  the  ritual  with 
reference  to  its  effects  on  the  worshipper.     In  v.  9,  he  says,  that 


36  BIOSAIC    PURIFICATIONS.  §  13. 

these  rites  could  not  make  the  worshipper,  tov  Xaris'uovra,  perfect 
as  to  the  conscience.  In  v.  10,  he  assigns  the  reason  why. 
They  consisted  only  in  services  which  could  affect  the  body, 
^jxaiwjxao'i  da^xhg — and  these  related  to  meats  and  drinks,  and 
divers  purifications.  The  xa/  before  ^jxajwfxatfi  Ca^xo^,  ought  to 
be  omitted,  as  it  is  by  Griesbach  and  others  ;  so  that  those  words 
shall  not  denote  other  ordinances,  but  stand  in  apposition  to 
/S^wixatfi  and  'Kd\i.a(ii,  and  ^laqjo^oi^  /3a'rTi(7'(xo(^,  to  denote  the  imper- 
fection of  them  all,  because  they  affect  the  body  alone  and  not  the 
mind.  Hence  it  is  perfectly  plain  that  no  reference  can  be  had 
here  to  the  immersions  of  inanimate  things,  but  only  to  the  puri- 
fications of  persons.  Indeed  the  whole  scope  of  the  passage  for- 
bids the  idea  of  such  immersions.  What  could  any  one  think 
that  the  immersion  of  vessels  of  earth,  or  wood,  had  to  do  with 
purifying  the  conscience  or  the  heart  of  a  worshipper  ?  A  wash- 
ing of  the  body,  or  a  sprinkling  of  blood,  or  of  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer,  might  seem  to  purify  the  unclean — but  not  surely  the  im- 
mersion of  vessels  of  earth  or  wood,  or  of  sacks  and  skins.  To 
refer  here,  then,  to  such  things,  is  totally  unnatural,  and  entirely 
out  of  the  train  of  thought. 

5.  Besides  the  purifications  of  the  person  are  §ia(po^oi,  diverse, 
various  ; — but  the  immersions  of  things  are  not,  either  in  act,  or 
circumstances,  or  end.  If  vessels  or  things  became  unclean,  in 
the  cases  specified,  they  were  all  immersed,  and  all  alike — and 
all  for  the  same  end.     What  various  immersions  here  ! 

On  the  other  hand,  the  purifications  of  men  were  exceedingly 
numerous,  and  of  various  kinds.  Some  were  legal  and  sacrificial, 
relating  to  the  atonement,  and  made  by  blood.  Others  were 
moral,  relating  to  regeneration  and  purity  of  heart,  as  symbolized, 
sometimes  by  various  kinds  of  washing,  and  at  other  times  by 
sprinkling.  To  all  these  various  kinds,  reference  is  had  in  the 
context.  Purification  by  blood,  in  ch.  ix.  7,  12,  13,  14,  19,  20, 
21,  22,  and  ch.  x.  1,  2 — and  in  numerous  other  places.  Puri- 
fication by  water,  and  by  sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  ch.  ix. 
13,  and  x.  22.     Why  should  the  Apostle  leave  purifications  so 


§  13.  MOSAIC    PURIFICATIONS.  37 

various  and  numerous  as  these,  and  so  entirely  in  point,  and  speak 
of  a  simple  regulation  as  to  the  immersion  of  cups  and  vessels, 
etc.,  things  altogether  foreign  to  the  scope  of  the  passage,  as 
Siacpo^Qi  ^a'TtrKfiJ.oi,  that  were  unable  to  make  perfect  the  worship- 
per ?  No  man  who  had  not  a  theory  to  support  could  bring  him- 
self to  do  such  violence  to  all  the  laws  of  interpretation  in  a  case 
so  plain. 

6.  To  conclude, — to  give  (SocjrrKfixol  the  sense  xa&a^i(f^oi,  fits 
the  word  to  include  all  the  kinds  of  purification  spoken  of  in  the 
context.  For,  as  we  have  seen,  xa^a^j^w  has  an  established  legal 
and  sacrificial  use  in  all  cases  of  atonement  by  blood.  And  we 
have  also  seen  ^a'Tm'^w  standing  in  relations  of  the  same  kind. 
Now  in  this  passage  the  idea  of  purification  by  blood  greatly  pre- 
dominates, as  may  be  seen  by  examining  the  passages  just  referred 
to ;  and  yet  the  idea  of  moral  purification  is  also  most  clearly 
presented  to  the  mind ; — and  no  sense  but  the  one  assigned  gives 
the  word  the  scope  necessary  to  take  in  both  kinds.  But  that 
does,  and  it  thus  fully  meets  all  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  It  is 
a  sense  fully  to  the  purpose  of  Paul ;  it  is  natural,  simple,  easy, 
obvious,  and  gives  a  richness  and  fulness  to  all  his  ideas.  The 
idea  of  immersions  is  out  of  the  scope  and  spirit  of  the  passage ; 
— it  is  forced  and  unnatural  :  it  is  unfitted  for  the  purposes  of 
Paul,  and  narrows  down  his  ideas  to  topics  totally  foreign  to  the 
subject,  and  has  but  one  solitary  advantage — it  aids  in  escaping 
an  unwelcome  result. 

What  evidence  is  there  against  all  this  mass  of  presumptive 
reasoning?  Does  any  previous  probability,  any  law  of  lang^^ge 
or  of  the  mind,  anything  in  the  context,  demand  the  idea  of  im- 
mersions ?  Nothing  of  this  kind.  All  is  the  other  way.  The 
meaning  claimed  is  highly  probable,  a  priori,  and  the  whole  scope 
of  the  passage  tends  to  establish  it.  By  all  laws  of  sound  phi- 
lology, then,  it  is  here  the  sense.* 

*  See  §  53  and  §  57,  No.  5. 


38  JEWISH    PURIFICATION.  §  14. 

§  14.    Jewish  Purification. 

In  Mark  vii.  4,  8,  and  in  Luke  xi.  38,  xada^i^w  is  the  natural 
and  obvious  sense  of/Sa-yr'Tj^w,  and  Jca^a^KT/xo^  of /Sa-TTTjfl'jxo^. 

1 .  This  sense  fulfils  perfectly  all  the  exigencies  of  the  passages. 
I  know  indeed  that  it  is  said  by  some,  that  in  Mark  there  is  a  rise 
in  the  idea  from  the  lesser  washing  of  the  hands,  which  was  com- 
mon before  all  meals,  to  the  greater  washing  implied  in  the  im- 
mersion of  the  body  after  coming  from  the  market.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  there  is  simply  a  change  from  the  specific  to  the  general 
and  indefinite.  They  always  wash  their  hands  before  meals,  and 
when  they  return  from  market  they,  in  addition  to  this,  purify 
themselves  (as  the  nature  of  the  case  may  require)  before  they 
eat.  In  the  latter  case,  Bloomfield  remarks,  it  denotes  a  washing 
of  the  body,  but  not  an  immersion.  The  sense,  xa^a^j^w,  also 
more  naturally  suggests  the  reply  of  Christ  in  Luke.  "  Now  do 
ye  Pharisees  make  clean  (xa^a^i  Jste)  the  outside  of  the  cup  and 
the  platter,"  etc. — where  jGa-yrn'^w  seems  to  suggest  xa^apj^w.  1 
admit  indeed  that  the  object  of  immersion  might  suggest  the  same 
idea.  But  such  associations  of  thought  are  more  likely,  the  more 
obvious  the  similarity  in  the  meaning  of  the  words.  But,  not  to 
rely  on  this,  I  remark, 

2.  Nothing  in  the  context  demands  the  sense,  immerse,  and 
powerful  reasons  forbid  it. 

All  must  confess  that  purification  is  the  only  idea  involved  in 
the  subject  of  thought.  Now  it  is  no  more  likely  that  a  want  of 
im^rsioji  offended  the  Pharisee,  Luke  xi.  38,  in  the  case  of 
Christ,  than  it  is  that  this  was  the  ground  of  offence  in  the  case 
of  the  disciples,  Mark  vii.  It  does  not  appear  that  Christ  had 
been  to  the  market.  Nor  is  it  likely  at  all  that  an  immersion  was 
expected,  as  a  matter  of  course,  before  every  meal,  even  on 
coming  from  a  crowd.  The  offence  in  the  case  of  the  disciples 
was  that  they  had  not  washed  their  hands.  An  immersion  was 
not  expected  of  them,  though  they  had  been  in  crowds.  Why 
should  it  be  of  Christ  ? 


§  14.  JEWISH    PURIFICATION.  39 

Kuinoel,  on  this  passage,  well  remarks,  that  the  existence  of 
any  such  custom  of  regular  immersion  before  all  meals  cannot  be 
proved.  And  the  opinions  and  statements  of  Jewish  writers,  in 
after  ages,  are  of  very  little  weight.  The  case  narrated  in  Tobit 
has,  in  my  mind,  more  weight  in  throwing  light  on  actual 
opinions  than  a  host  of  such  more  modern  wri|Me.  It  teaches  us 
clearly  that,  even  in  cases  where  it  was  possible,  they  attached 
no  peculiar  importance  to  the  form  of  immersion,  and  thought 
only  of  a  suitable  washing.  How  much  more  is  this  likely  to  be 
true  of  a  purification,  which  the  Pharisee  seemed  to  expect,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  before  every  meal  ? 

3.  But  above  all,  the  immersion  of  the  couches  on  which  they 
reclined  at  meals  is  out  of  the  question.  That  this  is  the  mean- 
ing of  xXivwv  here,  the  whole  context  shows,  and  all  impartial 
critics  allow ;  and  these  were  large  enough  for  three  to  recline 
upon  at  their  ease.  And  are  we  to  believe  that  the  Pharisees, 
and  all  the  Jews,  were  in  the  habit  of  immersing  these,  just 
to  avoid  the  inference  that  /Sa-Trn'^w  means  to  purify  ?  What  if 
remarkable  instances  of  superstition  in  particular  sects  can  be 
pointed  out  1  Is  it  likely  that  a  whole  nation,  all  the  Jews,  ever 
held  to  a  practice  like  this  ?  That  they  should  purify  them  with 
various  and  uncommanded  rites  is  altogether  probable.  But  that 
they  should  immerse  them  is  totally  incredible.* 

Dr.  Carson  seems  to  feel  this  point  keenly,  and  yet  manfully 
maintains  his  ground.  He  says  that  he  will  maintain  an  immer- 
sion until  its  impossibility  is  proved,  and  suggests  that  the  couches 
might  be  so  made  as  to  be  taken  to  pieces  for  this  end  !  He  has 
proved,  he  says,  the  meaning  of  the  word, — the  Holy  Ghost 
affirms  that  the  couches  were  immersed, — and  to  call  this  absurd 
is  to  charge  the  Holy  Ghost  with  uttering  an  absurdity  ;  — and 
he  is  filled  with  horror  at  the  thought,  and  warns  his  opponents  to 
beware  of  so  fearful  a  crime,  and  he  has  a  long  dissertation  on 
the  infidel  and  Unitarian  tendencies  of  allowing  difficulties  to 

*  See  §  67,  No.  6. 


40  PURIFICATION    BY    THE    ASHES    OF    A    HEIFER.  §   15. 

shake  our  faith  in  the  assertions  of  God.  But  what  is  all  this  to 
the  point  ?  The  question  is  not,  Will  we  believe  that  the  couches 
were  immersed  if  the  Holy  Ghost  says  so  ? — but  this,  Has  he  said 
so  ?  And  what  has  Dr.  Carson  proved  ?  Why  truly  that,  in 
other  instances,  (Bcck'tI^u)  means  immerse.  But  does  this  prove 
that  it  means  so  J|ere  ?  Does  it  even  create  a  probability  that  it 
does  ?  Not  at  an.  The  probability,  as  we  have  shown,  is  all 
the  other  way.  Hence  the  demand  to  prove  an  impossibility  of 
immersion  is  altogether  unreasonable.  And  it  is  against  his  own 
practice  in  other  cases.  Does  he  not  admit  that  /3a,'7rrw  means  to 
dye  or  color,  when  it  is  applied  to  the  beard  and  hair  ?  And  is 
it  impossible  to  dip  these  ?  Improbable  it  surely  is,  but  not  half 
so  much  so  as  the  immersion  of  couches. 

The  fact  is,  that  the  whole  reasoning  against  the  sense  claimed 

'  DO 

for  iSwTfri^u  in  these  passages,  rests  on  false  principles.  It  as- 
sumes a  violent  improbability  of  the  meaning  in  question,  and 
resorts  to  all  manner  of  shifts,  to  prove  the  possibility  of  immersion, 
as  though  that  were  all  that  the  case  required,  whilst  the  truth  is 
that  no  such  improbability  exists,  but  one  directly  the  reverse, 
and  the  whole  scope  of  the  passage  demands  the  meaning  claimed, 
that  is,  to  purify. 

Were  it  necessary,  I  would  remark  more  in  detail  on  the 
statements  of  Prof  Ripley,  as  to  the  dipping  of  hands,  and  the 
Jewish  rules  concerning  couches,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Gill.  It  is 
sufficient  to  remark  that  these  ideas  are  the  result  of  the  inge- 
nuity of  later  ages,  and  the  existence  of  any  such  rules  or  prac- 
tices in  the  days  of  Christ,  is  totally  devoid  of  proof,  and  even  of 
probability. 

§  15.     Purification  by  the  Ashes  of  a  Heifer. 

In  the  case  so  often  quoted  from  Sirach  xxxi.  25,  /3a'7rT»^w  re- 
quires the  sense,  xa^a^i'^w.  The  passage  is  this  :  f3a<7rTi<^6iJ.svos 
airo  vsx^oiJ  xa<  'Tr'aXiv  aifro^svog  dvrov,  tj  wcpsXiio's  tw  Xout^oj  dvTou  ; 
He  that  is  cleansed  from  a  dead  body,  and  again  toucheth  it,  of 
what  profit  to  him  is  his  cleansing  ? 


§  15.  PURIFICATION    BY    THE    ASHES    OF    A    HEIFER.  41 

Here  I  remark  : 

1.  The  sense,  xa^a^'^w,  purify,  suits  the  preposition  diro, — im- 
merse does  not.  It  is  natural  to  speak  of  purifying  or  cleansing 
from,  but  not  of  immersing  from,  a  dead  body. 

2.  No  immersion,  in  the  case  of  touching  a  dead  body,  was 
enjoined,  but  simply  a  washing  of  the  body,  so  as  to  leave  room 
for  various  modes  in  various  circumstances,  and  it  is  not  likely 
that  this  would  be  spoken  of  as  an  immersion. 

3.  The  rite  of  purification  from  a  dead  body  was  complex, 
and  no  import  of  the  word  ISw^fii^u,  but  the  one  claimed,  is 
adapted  to  include  the  whole.  By  far  the  most  important  part  of 
the  rite  was  the  sprinkling  of  the  water,  in  which  had  been  put 
the  ashes  of  the  heifer.  Concerning  this  it  is  said.  Num.  xix.  13, 
that  whosoever  shall  not  purify  himself  with  it,  after  touching  a 
dead  body,  "  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  Israel,  because  the 
water  of  separation  was  not  sprinkled  on  him."  Of  the  washing 
no  such  thing  is  said,  and  Paul,  Heb.  ix.  13,  refers  to  the  sprink- 
ling, as  if  it  included  the  part  of  the  rite  on  which  the  effect 
mainly,  if  not  entirely,  depends.  It  is  the  ashes  of  a  heifer, 
sprinkling  the  unclean,  that  is  spoken  of  as  sanctifying  to  the 
purification  of  the  flesh, — ayia^si  <z'fog  tyjv  tyjs  (fa^xos  xa^aeoTYiTa. 
Of  course  the  writer  could  not  mean  to  exclude  so  essential  a  part 
of  the  rite  as  this,  nay  its  very  essence.  Nor  could  he  call  it  an 
immersion.  It  is  a  sprinkling.  It  can  purifj^,  but  it  cannot  im- 
merse. But  the  sense,  xa^a^i  Jw,  can  include  both  the  sprinkling 
and  the  washing  : — for,  taken  together,  they  purify,  and  this  is 
the  complex  result  of  the  whole  rite,  and  nothing  else.  If  any 
object  that  it  is  not  consistent  to  apply  Xour^w  to  a  complex  opera- 
tion like  this,*  I  ask  them,  how  then  is  it  consistent  to  apply  it  to 
the  blood  of  Christ,  which  is  spoken  of  as  the  blood  of  sprinkling  ? 
And  yet  we  are  spoken  of  as  washed  from  our  sins  in  his  own 
blood,  where  Xouw  is  used.  The  truth  is,  that  the  sense  of  Xo!;w  is 
general  too,  and  denotes  merely  a  washing  or  cleansing,  without 

*  Aovrpdv  is  applied  to  clinic  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  perfusion.  See  §  GG. 


42  PURIFICATION    BY    THE    ASHES    OF    A    HEIFER.  §  15. 

respect  to  mode.  Besides,  an  actual  washing  is  a  part  of  the 
complex  rite. 

The  effort  of  Prof.  Ripley  to  establish  the  sense,  bathing,  from 
the  word  Xour^o'v,  is  vain.  No  fact  is  more  notorious  than  that 
Xoucaj,  of  itself,  does  not  mean  to  bathe.  In  this  respect  it  is  as  un- 
limited to  any  mode  as  y^^^  ;  so  much  so  that  the  vessels,  in  the 
vestibules  of  ancient  churches,  for  washing  the  hands,  were  called 
XovTYj^ss,  as  well  as  viitrrj^sg.  One  of  the  Fathers,  as  quoted  by 
Suicer,  says  Xovrrj^sg  vSaros  'tts'ttXtj^wixsvoi,  stand  before  the  gate  of 
the  church,  that  you  may  wash  your  hands  (vin^tj?),  so  without 
the  church,  sit  the  poor,  that  by  alms  you  may  wash  (-TrXuv/jj)  the 
hands  of  your  soul.  I  do  not  quote  this  passage  for  the  sake  of 
its  theology,  but  to  show  that  Xo'uw  and  its  derivatives  mean  sim- 
ply to  wash  or  to  cleanse,  and  not  to  bathe,  any  more  than  the 
Latin  lavo.  Circumstances  may  show  that  bathing  is  meant,  but 
the  word  itself  does  not. 

Dr.  Carson  says  that  all  reasoning  from  this  passage  proceeds 
on  the  assumption  that  the  Jews  had  made  no  additions  to  the  rite. 
Not  so.  It  proceeds  upon  the  assumption  that  they  had  not  omitted 
its  very  essence,  the  sprinkling  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  and  that 
they  would  not  call  this  an  immersion,  but  a  purification,  as  in  fact 
it  was ;  and  that  as  no  immersion  was  enjoined,  but  simply  wash- 
ing, so  the  sense,  immersion,  is  not  to  be  assumed  without  necessity 
and  without  proof,  and  against  the  whole  probability  of  the  case. 

That  the  Jews  did  take  the  view  of  this  rite  that  I  claim,  is 
plain  from  the  account  given  of  it  by  Philo.  He  directs  the  whole 
attention  to  sprinkling  and  nothing  else.  He  says,  "  Moses  does 
this  philosophically,  for  most  others  are  sprinkled  with  unmixed 
water,  some  with  sea  or  river  water,  others  with  water  drawn 
from  the  fountains.  But  Moses  employed  ashes  for  this  purpose. 
Then,  as  to  the  manner,  they  put  them  into  a  vessel,  pour  on 
water, — then  moisten  branches  of  hyssop  with  the  mixture  (ix  rou 
x^aixaros  (Sa'TfTovrag  urftfo'TTou  xXadovg),  then  sprinkle  it  upon  those 
who  are  to  be  purified"  (roTg  xa^ai^ojuisvojj).  And  this  account  was 
written  after  the  passage  in  question.     Here  we  note,  in  passing, 


§  16.  PURIFICATION    OF    JUDITH.  43 

a  use  of  (SccTtrc^  with  ix,  at  war  with  the  idea  to  dip,  and  consistent 
only  with  the  idea  to  moisten  or  wet. 

Now  for  what  reason  are  we  to  set  aside  probabilities  like 
these  ?  Merely  to  avoid  so  simple,  natural,  and  probable  a  con- 
clusion, as  that  /Sa-TfTj^w  sometimes  means  simply  to  purify,  as  in 
this  case  it  most  clearly  does.* 

§  16.     Purification  of  Jiidilh. 

The  case  of  Judith  also  sustains  the  same  view.  In  Judith 
xii.  7,  we  are  told  that  "  she  remained  in  the  camp  of  Holofernes 
three  days,  and  by  night  (that  is,  on  each  night)  she  went  out  to 
the  valley  of  Bethulia  and  purified  or  washed  herself,  in  the 
camp,  at  the  fountain  of  water."  Ila^sjxsjvsv  sv  tv}  ir'a^sixISoXyj  ^jfxs^aj 
T^sis,    xoLi    s^S'iro^ivSTo    xajTo.    vuxra   2\c,    tt^v    cpa^ayya  BsruXova  xai 

Here  we  notice  that  the  purification  in  question  was  performed 
in  the  camp,  and  at  or  near  the  fountain — and  for  three  nights  in 
succession.  In  narrating  the  case  of  Tobit,  a  man  at  a  river,  and 
away  from  all  observation,  no  reference  to  immersion  was  made. 
But  here  a  female,  in  a  camp,  and  at  or  near  a  fountain,  it  is 
insisted,  did  immerse  herself,  three  nights  in  succession.  We 
are  told  of  her  courage  and  faith,  and  of  possible  bathing  places 
near  the  spring,  and  all  for  what  ?  To  avoid  so  obvious  a  con- 
clusion as  that  the  writer  merely  means  to  say  that  she  purified, 
or  washed  herself,  without  reference  to  the  mode.  In  the  case  of 
Susannah,  we  are  told  that  she  desired  to  wash  herself,  Xo6(fa(f6af, 
in  the  garden,  because  it  was  warm.  Here  she  could  shut 
the  doors  and  be  alone,  v.  17.  Yet  the  writer  says  merely 
wash.  But  in  the  case  of  Judith,  even  in  a  camp,  he  must  needs 
insist,  it  seems,  on  the  mode,  and  that  mode  must  be  immersion. 
And  what  reason  is  there  for  all  this  ?  Is  not  the  sense  xa^a^i^w, 
a  priori,  probable  ?     Yes.     Does  it  not  fulfil  all  the  exigencies  of 

*  Cyril  of  Alexandria  settles  this  question,  for  he  expressly  calls  purify- 
ing by  ashes  baptizing.     See  §  53. 


44  RELATIONS    TO    THE    SYSTEM    OF    WRITERS.  §  17. 

the  case  ?  Yes.  Was  it  of  any  importance  to  specify  the  mode  ? 
No.  Do  the  circumstances  of  the  case  call  for  immersion  ?  No  ; 
they  seem  at  first  sight  entirely  to  forbid  it ;  and  nothing  but  skill 
in  suggesting  possibilities  can  at  all  remove  the  impression.  In 
fact,  the  circumstances  of  the  case  have  led  the  vast  majority  of 
minds  in  all  ages,  to  feel  that  immersion  is  not  the  meaning  here, — 
and  that  to  purify  or  to  wash  is.  Hence  it  is  that  Dr.  Carson,  in  his 
arduous  attempt  to  prove  that  /Sot-Trrj^w  never  means  to  wash,  ir- 
respective  of  mode,  is  obliged  to  admit  that  he  has  "  all  the 
lexicographers  and  commentators"  against  him.     p.  79. 

§  17.     Relations  to  the  System  of  Writers. 

No  contrary  probability,  or  usage,  can  be  established  from  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  age,  or  of  the  preceding  age,  who 
used  the  Alexandrine  Greek.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  argu- 
ment thus  far  is  specific,  and  relates  to  a  religious  usage,  pro- 
duced at  a  particular  time,  and  by  particular  circumstances 
definitely  and  clearly  marked.  Now  to  refute  this  argument,  it 
is  of  no  use  to  go  to  writers  who  lived  and  wrote  entirely  out  of 
this  range  of  circumstances  and  ideas.  It  could  only  prove  that, 
in  other  circumstances,  another  usage  of  the  word  did  exist,  and 
this  no  one  need  deny. 

But  it  is  very  noticeable  that,  in  the  very  writers  where  alone 
proof  of  an  opposite  religious  usage,  or  even  of  a  probability  of  it, 
can  reasonably  be  looked  for,  there  is  none  to  be  found.  It  is  in 
these  very  writings  that  the  whole  current  of  probability,  and 
of  usage,  sets  strongly  the  other  way. 

I  do  not  deny  that  these  writers  do  also  use  the  word  (Baifri^Uf 
in  other  circumstances,  and  in  a  secular  sense,  to  denote  immer- 
sion, sinking,  overwhelming,  or  oppression.  But  this  only  proves 
that  the  two  usages  did  coexist ;  just  as  Dr.  Carson  proves  that 
the  two  usages  of  ^ctirru)  did  coexist  in  Hippocrates,  and  that  the 
existence  of  the  one  did  not  disprove  the  existence  of  the  other. 
So,  at  least  four  meanings  of  the  word  spring  co-exist,  and  yet  no 
one  infers  from  one  that  the  others  do  not  exist. 


§  17.  RELATIONS    TO    THE    SYSTEM    OF    WRITERS.  45 

That  the  religious  usage  of  these  writers  all  sets  one  way,  one 
obvious  and  admitted  fact  may  show.  Dr.  Carson  admits  that  all 
the  lexicographers  and  commentators  do  assign  to  the  word 
/Sa-n'ri^u  the  unlimited  sense  to  wash,  or  cleanse.  Now  on  what 
writers  do  they  rely  ?  Beyond  all  dispute  on  the  writers  of 
Alexandrine  Greek, — the  very  writers  who  have  furnished  all  the 
facts  on  which  this  argument  is  based.  And  these  writers,  be  it 
noticed,  furnish  no  presumption  or  usage  the  other  way.  Even 
in  those  minuter  shades  of  meaning,  which  are  furnished  by  al- 
lusion, comparison,  or  association  of  ideas,  all  things  tend  the  same 
way.  So,  in  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  Paul,  the  sacrificial 
reference  of  Baptism  is  plainly  indicated,  Acts  xxii.  16  :  "  Arise 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins  ('AvatfTa?  ^ olt^tk^ ai  xai 
dit6\ov(fat  rag  aixa^rlag  (fov),  calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
Here  we  have  faith  in  Christ,  the  washing  away  or  pardon  of 
sins,  and  a  purification  intended  to  symbolize  it.  BccirrKfai,  purify 
thyself,  or  be  purified  bodily, — airoXovffai  rag  a^a^riag,  wash 
away  thy  sins,  as  to  the  mind,  by  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord.  Here  the  antithesis  and  correspondence  are  beautiful  and 
complete,  and  one  seems  naturally  to  suggest  the  other.  So  the 
case  in  Peter  iii.  21,  where  he  speaks  of  baptism  as  saving  us,  is 
far  more  natural  and  beautiful,  if  we  adopt  this  sense,  for  he 
seems  to  think  that,  if  he  left  the  word  (BairrKfixa  unguarded,  he 
might  be  taken  to  mean  the  external  purification  of  the  body. 
But  as  this  does  not  save  us,  and  as  nothing  but  the  purification 
of  the  mind  does,  he  guards  himself  and  says,  I  do  not  mean  the 
putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  by  the  purification  of  which 
I  speak,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  towards  God. 
Hence,  too,  the  legal  or  sacrificial  sense  lies  upon  the  very  face 
of  the  passage, — for  it  is  the  purification  of  the  conscience  by 
atoning  blood,  to  which  he  refers,  and  not  to  an  external  washing 
at  all ;  and  I  need  not  say  to  any  one  who  can  feel  the  nice  cor- 
respondencies of  words,  how  much  more  beautiful  and  clear  the 
whole  passage  becomes  by  assigning  to  ^airrKjixa  the  sense  of  a 
spiritual  purification,  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  which  Peter  affirms 


46  RELATIONS    TO    THE    SYSTEM    OF    WRITERS.  §  17. 

that  it  has.     On  the  subject,  however,  of  the  external  washing  in 
this  case,  I  shall  speak  more  at  large  under  another  head. 

So  too  the  account  given  by  Josephus  of  the  baptism  of  John, 
Antiq.  B.  xviii.  c.  5,  §  2,  presents  the  same  train  of  thought  to 
the  mind.  Instead  of  the  awkward  translation  of  Whiston  I 
prefer  to  give  a  free  statement  of  the  obvious  sense,  and  to  quote 
the  original  where  critical  exactness  is  needed. 

John,  he  says,  informed  the  Jews  that  before  they  could  be 
baptized  they  must  commence  and  profess  the  practice  of  piety 
towards  God,  and  justice  towards  each  other — and  that  their 
baptism  would  be  acceptable  to  God,  if  they  did  not  rely  upon  it 
as  a  means  of  putting  away  a  part  only  of  their  sins,  but  used  it 
merely  as  a  means  of  purifying  the  body,  to  indicate  that  the 
soul  had  been  previously  thoroughly  purified  by  righteousness. 

To  denote  baptism  he  uses  the  word  (3a'n'TKfig,  and  to  denote  its 
import  he  states  that  they  are  to  use  it  £(p'  ayvsia  rod  Cwjaaro^,  olts 
Ss  xai  TYjs  ■i^v)(7}g  dixaio(fvvri  ij^^osxxsxa&a^iJ.ivrig.  Now  here,  I  re- 
mark that  there  was  nothing  to  cause  Josephus  or  any  other  Jew 
to  think  of  the  mode,  or  to  attach  any  importance  to  it.  No  idea 
of  a  fancied  reference,  in  the  rite,  to  the  death  of  Christ,  could 
bias  his  mind  towards  the  sense  immerse.  To  him,  it  is  plain, 
that  it  meant  nothing  but  "  purifying  the  body,  to  indicate  that  the 
mind  had  been  previously  thoroughly  purified  by  righteousness;" 
and  he  speaks  just  as  he  would,  if  these  ideas  had  been  suggested 
by  the  name  of  the  rite  ;  in  other  words,  just  as  he  would  if 
xa&a^(fiS  had  stood  in  the  place  of  (Sa'jtTKfig. 

Now  although  I  would  not  rely  on  such  places  for  proof, 
against  a  strong  contrary  probability,  yet  when  I  find  them  so 
perfectly  coincident  with  all  other  facts,  when  all  shades  of  pro- 
bability so  perfectly  harmonize  and  blend  in  a  common  result,  I 
cannot  hesitate,  for  I  see  no  good  reason  for  doubt.  It  is  not  a 
solitary  fact  on  which  the  argument  rests.  To  overthrow  it,  the 
whole  current  of  probability  must  be  reversed,  and  so  striking  a 
coincidence  and  harmony  of  meaning,  in  so  many  independent 
passages,  be  supposed  to  exist  without  a  cause.     Particular  errors 


§  18.  THE    FATHERS.  47 

may  no  doubt  be  detected  in  the  argument,  and  individual  pas- 
sages, viewed  out  of  their  relations,  may  be  made  to  admit  another 
possible  sense.  But  that  a  fair  and  comprehensive  view  of  all 
the  facts  of  the  case  can  be  made  to  lead  to  a  result  opposite  to 
the  one  here  maintained,  I  shall  not  think  possible,  until  I  see  it 
done ;  and  there  are  no  new  and  undiscovered  means  for  doing  it. 
The  facts  all  lie  within  a  given  and  definite  compass,  and  they 
can  easily  be  placed  before  the  minds  of  all.  If  any  that  bear 
on  the  case  have  been  omitted,  it  can  easily  be  shown.  If  not, 
then  it  must  be  shown  that  the  principles,  on  which  this  argument 
rests,  are  unsound,  or  that  they  have  not  been  accurately  applied, 
and  I  am  not  aware  that  either  of  these  things  can  be  done. 

The  argument  from  the  usage  of  the  writers  of  Alexandrine 
Greek  is  now  at  an  end.  Other  considerations,  as  it  regards  this 
part  of  the  subject,  still  remain ;  but  the  statement  of  them  will 
be  deferred  till  the  leading  objections  to  this  view  shall  claim  our 
attention. 

§  18.     The  Fathers. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  that  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this 
view  is  also  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers. 

I  appeal  to  them,  not  because  I  think  that  their  opinions,  on 
questions  of  interpretation,  or  sacred  philology,  are  of  much 
weight,  for  it  is  well  known  to  all,  that  either  their  attainments  in 
biblical  literature  were  small,  or  that  their  principles  of  philology 
were  to  a  great  extent  fluctuating  or  unsound.  Nor  do  I  appeal 
to  them,  because  I  deem  their  theological  opinions  of  peculiar 
weight.  They  deserve,  indeed,  a  respectful  attention,  and  are  of 
great  use  in  investigating  the  history  of  opinions.  Moreover,  they 
often  furnish  rich  and  valuable  materials  for  thought.  But  nothing 
can  be  more  desperate  than  the  attempt  to  make  a  regular  and 
harmonious  system  of  truth  from  their  works.  The  sentence  of 
Milton  on  them  is  well  known ;  and  though,  if  left  unbalanced  by 
other  considerations,  it  would  produce  undue  neglect,  yet  it  is  es- 
sentially based  on  truth.     But  I  refer  to  them,  simply  as  furnish- 


48  BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  §  19. 

ing  facts  in  the  history  of  language,  and  it  will  be  my  object  to 
show  that  these  facts  are  such  as  would  naturally  flow  from  the 
truth  of  the  view  which  I  have  given. 

My  position  then  is  this:  if  we  admit  that  in  the  days  of  Christ, 
xa^a^jjw  was  the  import  of  iSa-TTTj^w,  taking  all  the  texts  in  the 
New  Testament  in  which  the  word  occurs,  and  the  ideas  con- 
nected with  the  rite,  and  looking  at  the  laws  of  the  mind  and  the 
natural  course  of  thought,  we  shall  find  that  no  view  can  so  well 
explain  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  Fathers  and  the  opinions  enter- 
tained by  them,  and  by  their  opponents,  of  the  import  and  effects 
of  the  rite. 

§  19.     Baptismal  Regeneration. 

This  view  shows  how  dva^svvotw,  to  regenerate,  and  other  words 
of  like  import,  could  easily  become,  with  the  Fathers,  synonymes 
of  fSa-n'Ti^u.  That  these  words  did  so  become,  is  a  notorious  fact, 
as  will  presently  be  proved,  but  the  whole  reason  is  not  commonly 
assigned.  The  reason,  at  least  in  part,  appears  to  be  this :  xct&a^i^u, 
and  of  course  ^wn'ri^cjj,  in  its  spiritual  sense,  is  in  fact  a  synonyme 
of  dva^swccw  ; — for  what  is  it  to  purify  the  spirit,  but  to  re- 
generate ?  In  fact,  this  very  form  of  speech  is  used  to  denote  this 
thing.  Thus  in  1  Pet.  i.  22,  23.  The  idea  to  purify  the  soul 
in  obeying  the  truth,  through  the  spirit,  in  v.  22,  is  in  v.  23  ex- 
pressed by  the  equivalent  born  again  of  the  word  of  God,  in  which 
dva^svvaw  is  used.  So  in  Acts  xv.  9.  He  made  no  difference 
between  them  and  us,  "  having  purified  their  hearts  by  faith" 
(tJj  '!fi(fTSi  xa&oi^ldag  tcxj  xa^Slag  duTOJv).  So,  too,  the  pure  in  heart 
(xa&a^oi  TTJ  xa^Sici)  shall  see  God,  Matt.  v.  8.  "  Who  gave  himself 
for  us  that  he  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify 
(xa&a^idj})  unto  himself  a  peculiar  people,"  Tit.  ii.  14.  So  Eph. 
v.  26. 

It  also  explains  the  origin  of  Baptismal  Regeneration,  for 
where  analogical  senses  exist,  one  denoting  external  and  mate- 
rial, and  the  other  spiritual  purification,  it  is  natural  that 
they   should    run    into  each  other,   also   that   terms  applied,  to 


§  19.  BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION.  49 

one  should  be  applied  to  the  other.  Thus,  if  (Saitrl^c^  means 
to  purify,  then  there  is  natural  purification  and  spiritual  puri- 
fication, and  in  a  passage  where  spiritual  purification  alone  is 
meant,  the  idea  of  external  purification  may  commingle.  Tims 
in  Pet.  i.  9,  xa&aPKfixov  denotes  only  spiritual  purification  from 
sin.  But  extensively  the  sense  ritual  purification  by  the  external 
rite  was  commingled,  among  the  Fathers — as  also  among  the 
formalists  of  this  day.  The  same  is  true  in  1  Cor.  vi.  11,  where 
*'ye  are  washed"  (aTfeXoi^tracrds)  denotes  spiritual  washing  only, 
and  yet  the  same  idea  of  external  ritual  washing,  has  extensively 
been  commingled,  in  the  conceptions  and  interpretations  of 
formalists.*  Moreover,  since  spiritual  purification  is  regenera- 
tion, there  would  be  a  tendency  first  to  use  ava^swaw  in  the  place 
of /Sa'TTTj^w  when  it  denoted  spiritual  purification.  Having  thus 
become  an  equivalent  of  /Da-Trri'^w  in  one  sense,  there  would  be  a 
tendency  in  the  word  to  assume  its  place  when  used  in  the  other 
sense,  and  thus  to  denote  the  external  rite,  and  not,  in  the  first 
instance,  to  denote  its  actual  efficacy.  So  in  Justin  Martyr, 
/Sa-rrj^w  is  rarely,  if  ever,  used  at  all  to  describe  the  rite,  but 
dva^swaw.  'EVsira  ayovrai  v:^^  tjixCJv  sv&a.  vS(a)^  z^tI  xcci  r^o-rrov 
ava^s vvsVsw^  6u  xaj  r}ix,Sig  ava^svvy]^y](xsv  avaysvvwvraj : — "  Th3n  they 
are  brought  by  us  where  there  is  water,  and  in  the  manner  of 
regeneration,  in  which  we  were  regenerated,  they  are  regene- 
rated ;"  that  is,  in  the  manner  of  baptism,  wherein  we  were 
baptized,  they  are  baptized.  And  this  use  was  general  and 
familiar,  as  may  be  fully  seen  in  the  quotations  collected  by 
Wall  in  his  history  of  infant  baptism. 


*  Baptismal  regeneration,  as  held  by  the  Fathers,  does  not  imply  rege- 
neration by  mere  water,  without  the  spirit,  but  it  is  a  commingling  of 
external  and  internal  purification,  by  the  theory  that  it  is  God's  established 
mode  to  give  internal  purification  through  external,  and  not  independently 
of  it.  Hence,  when  the  internal  alone  is  spoken  of,  their  mode  of  thinking 
mingled  the  external  with  it.  The  one  purification  in  Eph.  iv,  5,  is 
spiritual  only,  so  also  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4 ;  yet  the  idea  of  the  external  puri- 
fication was  so  commingled  with  it  as  to  predominate. 

3 


50  DENIAL    OF    WATER    BAPTISM.  §  20. 

Another  cause  tended  to  the  same  result,  the  application  of  the 
figure  "  born  of  water"  in  John  iii.  5,  to  external  baptism.  Of 
this  I  shall  speak  in  the  next  section.  Which  exerted  most 
influence  let  others  decide. 


§  20.     Detiial  of  Water  Baptism. 

This  view  explains  not  only  the  early  prevalence  of  the  idea 
of  baptismal  regeneration,  but  also  of  the  other  extreme,  the 
entire  denial  of  water  baptism. 

As  already  stated,  there  are  two  kinds  of  purification,  that 
of  the  Spirit  and  that  of  water  ; — one  real  and  effectual,  the  other 
only  a  symbol,  an  external  rite,  and  yet  both  are  called  by  the 
same  name,  purification,  or  baptism. 

Now  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  a  class  of  texts,  in  which 
the  true  and  spiritual  purification  alone  is  spoken  of,  and  a  saving 
energy  is  ascribed  to  it ;  as  Eph.  iv.  5,  Gal.  iii.  27,  1  Cor.  xii. 
13,  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  Col.  ii.  12,  Eph.  v.  26,  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  Titus  iii. 
5,  John  iii.  5.  That  the  external  form  cannot  be  here  spoken  of, 
I  propose  to  show  in  another  place.  I  refer  to  these  passages 
here  to  illustrate  fully  the  idea. 

But  soon,  the  external  sense  intruded,  and  with  what  was  first 
said  only  of  the  essential  spiritual  purification,  the  idea  of  the 
external  form  was  mingled,  according  to  the  uniform  tendency  of 
the  human  mind  to  sink  from  the  spirit  to  the  form,  and  thus  made 
baptismal  regeneration,  and  all  its  train  of  errors.  And  as  one 
extreme  begets  another,  those  who  opposed  this  view  as  too  carnal, 
relying  on  those  passages  where  baptism  denotes  clearly  no  more 
than  a  spiritual  purification,  would  deny  that  the  form  was  to  be 
used  at  all.  In  practice,  words  are  things.  Systems  grow  out  of 
words.  And  a  word  of  a  double  analogical  sense,  like  purify,  would 
naturally  give  rise  to  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  on 
the  one  side,  and  to  an  entire  denial  of  water  baptism  on  the  other ; 
and  that  such  were  the  results  all  know.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
word  in  the  sense  to  immerse,  tends  to  no  such  result,  for  the 


§  21.  PATRISTIC    USAGES.  51 

spiritual  sense,  in  this  usage,  has  no  relation  at  all  to  regenera- 
tion or  purity  in  any  form,  and  denotes,  as  before  stated,  only  to 
'  overwhelm,  to  oppress.  And  it  deserves  notice,  that  the  same 
passages,  which,  by  this  process  of  sinking  the  spiritual  in  the 
natural,  gave  rise  to  the  gross  errors  of  baptismal  regeneration, 
are  still  the  passages  which,  in  consequence  of  the  general  con- 
cession of  the  church  that  they  relate  to  the  external  form,  fill 
the  hands  of  the  Romanists,  Puseyites,  Campbellites,  and  other 
errorists  of  the  like  kind,  with  their  most  powerful  weapons. 

Had  xa&a^i^u,  and  not  (Sa-Trri^u,  been  used,  so  that  its  analo- 
gical uses  could  have  been  noticed,  and  its  spiritual  import  felt, 
by  modern  scholars,  the  root  of  the  error  would  have  been  seen. 
But  by  using  the  word  baptize,  as  a  technic,  the  laws  which 
influenced  the  mind  in  its  original  use  have  been  veiled.  And, 
until  that  class  of  passages,  from  which  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration  sprang,  is  restored  to  their  original,  true,  and 
spiritual  sense,  the  occasions  of  this  pernicious  error  can  never  be 
thoroughly  eradicated  from  the  Christian  church. 

Hence  I  do  not  ascribe  the  origin  of  the  usage  of  ava^swaw,  as 
a  synonyme  of  (Swn'Ti^u,  to  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration 
as  some  do, — but  rather  believe  that  the  natural  and  early  use  of 
this  word  to  denote  the  rite,  and  a  false  application  of  certain  texts 
to  it,  gave  rise  to  the  doctrine  itself,  and  that,  when  this  doctrine 
was  established,  the  whole  range  of  language  pertaining  to  re- 
generation passed  over  to  the  rite,  as  (pw?,  (pwrtCfjooV,  'xakiyyZMMSdla, 
@soys\iv6(fia,  ctva'rrXao'jf ; — that  is,  light,  illumination,  regeneration, 
the  divine  generation,  a  new  creation.  Hence  also  (pwr»^w,  to 
baptize. 

§  21.     Patristic   Usages. 

Besides  this  general  reasoning  from  well-known  facts,  there  is 
also  philological  proof  that  the  word  was  often  used  by  the 
Fathers  in  the  sense  xu&a^i^u).  That  the  other  sense  also  occurs 
I  need  not  deny ;  for  they  were  originally  formed  rather  in  the 
school  of  classic,  than  of  Alexandrine  Greek.     In  their  case  two 


52  PATRISTIC    USAGES.  §    21. 

currents  met,  and  we  are  not  to  look  so  much  for  universally  con- 
sistent use,  as  for  evidence  that  the  Alexandrine  current  did 
mingle  in  the  stream.     A  general  view  of  facts  is  this. 

1.  The  earlier  Christian  writers  do  not  so  often  use  the  word 
^a-Trrj^w,  as  some  synonyme  derived  from  the  sense  to  purify,  as 
ava^svvaoo,  as  before  stated.  Nor  do  they  fix  the  mind  on  the  idea 
immerse,  but  on  purification,  and  use  such  paraphrases  as  denote 
it.  Thus,  after  the  passage  of  Justin  Martyr  already  quoted,  he 
says,  in  describing  the  mode  of  regeneration  or  baptism,  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
Xourpov  -ztfojouvraj,  they  wash  or  purify  them. 

2.  They  often  use  (BaiZTidiLog  in  the  legal  and  sacrificial  sense, 
so  as  to  exclude  any  idea  but  xa^apjtr'/jioV.  So  Chrysostom,  Hom. 
83,  says,  "  He  calls  his  cross  and  death,  a  cup  and  baptism, — a 
cup,  because  he  readily  drank  it ;  baptism  (/3a'33'T»o'|xov),  because 
by  it  he  purified,  sxai^i^psv,  the  world  ;"  that  is,  he  calls  it  purifica- 
tion, because  by  it  he  purified  the  world,  in  which  case  the  sense 
is  sacrificial,  he  made  atonement  for  the  world, — and  the  reason 
assigned  depends,  for  all  its  force,  on  giving  to  (BazirKfix.os  the 
sacrificial  sense  xa&apio'fxog.  Such  usages  as  /Sa'rrio'jxa  Sia  ixapru- 
pjou  xai  ui'ixoiTos,  "  purification  iy  martyrdom  and  hy  blood,"  demon- 
strate the  truth  of  this  view.     See  §§  25  and  26,  also  §  64. 

So  Theophylact,  on  Matt.  xx.  22,  23,  says,  "He  calls  his 
death  (SatrKfixov  w^  xa&aprixov  ov-ra  'ravrwv  tjjulgjv  ;  as  making  a 
purification,  or  expiation  for  all  of  us,"  where  the  whole  force,  as 
before,  rests  on  giving  to  ^a^rrrKfiiov  the  sacrificial  sense  xu^apiCjaov. 
As  if  he  had  said,  he  calls  his  death  a  purification,  because  it  was 
designed  to  purify  all  of  us.  So,  on  Mark  x.  38,  39,  he  says, 
"  He  calls  his  cross  (SaifrKfiiov,  as  about  to  make  a  purification 
for  sins,"  xa&apKf^xhv  twv  ajaapriGjv.  Here  the  sacrificial  sense  is 
still  more  evident  and  undeniable,  and  requires  {Sa-n'TKfiiov  to  mean 
xa^apitfjxo'v,  as  before.  Many  other  passages  of  a  like  kind  could 
be  adduced,  but  it  is  needless.     §§  25,  26. 

3.  They  sometimes,  in  describing  the  rite,  use  xa&aipu  or 
xadap»(^w  alone.     Thus  Gregory-Nazianz.  says,  6-^si  xada»p6(X£vov 


§  21.  PATRISTIC    USAGES.  53 

'Irirfouv  £v  Tw  'lopSavY)  Ty]v  si^rjv  xcc^apCiv  ^aXkov  8i  ayviPovra  tyj  xa&ap<f si 
Ta  Wara — ov  yap  S-rj  aurog  iSsiro  xadapCiSuig  6  a»pwv  Tr}\i  afxapriav  tou 
xoV/xou  ;  that  is,  '•  thou  shalt  see  Jesus  purified,  i.  e.  baptized,  in  the 
Jordan,  with  my  purification  (i.  e.  baptism),  or  rather,  sanctifying 
the  waters,  by  his  purification :  for  he  did  not  need  purification 
who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world."  Here  /DacrTi^w  is  not 
used  at  all  in  describing  the  rite,  and  in  its  place  is  used  xa^aipw 
and  its  derivatives,  both  in  a  moral  and  sacrificial  sense.* 

Again,  "  He  who  can  take  away  the  sins  of  others,"  ov  xa^aprfiwv 
svsxa  zntl  to,  vajxara  sp-^srm,  aXK'  oVts  ^^^vajxiv  dvroig  sv^sjvai  xa^apTixrjv, 
does  not  come  to  the  water  for  the  sake  of  being  purified  himself, 
but  to  impart  to  it  a  purifying  power. 

Here,  as  before,  I  do  not  vouch  for  the  truth  of  the  ideas. 
They  are  pregnant  with  superstition.  From  the  notion  that 
Christ,  at  his  baptism,  gave  to  the  water  a  purifying  power,  came 
the  idea  of  holy  water,  and  ot  a  mysterious  influence  or  presence 
in  the  water  of  baptism,  which  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  doctrine 
of  baptismal  regeneration.  Still  the  passages  are  of  no  less  im- 
portance in  showing  the  use  of  words  ;  and  for  this  alone  I  quote 
them. 

It  would  be  of  no  avail,  here,  to  say  that  the  Fathers  did  in 
fact  immerse ;  this  could  not  decide  that  purify  was  not  the 
sense, — and  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  some  of  them  use  the 
word  l3a'TfTi^o  to  denote  the  act  of  immersion  in  baptism,  it  would 
avail  nothing.  It  would  only  prove  inconsistent  usage.  But  in 
the  confluence  of  classical  and  Alexandrine  Greek,  after  the  days  of 
Christ,  and  in  writers  so  various  and  so  multifarious,  we  are  not 
to  look  for  consistent  usage.  It  is  enough  that  we  find  the  usage 
claimed.  We  should  rather  expect  a  transition  from  the  original 
ideas  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  through  a  period  of  incon- 
sistent usage,  till,  as  the  form  usurped  the  place  of  the  spirit,  and 
a  superstitious  efficacy  was  attached  to  immersion,  the  original 
sense  would  disappear,  and  the  name  of  the  form  alone  remain, 
as  is  the  case  in  the  Greek  Church  at  the  present  day. 

*  See  &  25. 


54  PATRISTIC    USAGES.  §  21. 

I  do  not  expect  to  find  in  the  Fathers  a  correct  philosophical 
account  of  the  origin  or  progress  of  their  own  errors.  They  as- 
sign different,  and  often  inconsistent  reasons  for  the  usages  of 
language  already  adverted  to.  It  is  enough  for  me  that  I  have 
the  facts  before  me,  and  the  laws  of  the  mind  to  explain  them. 
They  are  just  such  as  I  should  expect,  on  the  supposhion  that  the 
original  religious  sense  of /Sa'Trr/^w  was  xa^apit^w. 


NOTE. 

What  precedes  was  the  basis  of  Dr.  Carson's  first  reply  to  me.  I  did 
not  consider  the  discussion  complete,  but  was  then  preparing  the  two 
following  chapters.  All  of  my  positions  I  have  sustained  since,  by  the 
Fathers  I  have  not  endeavored  to  give  a  minute  answer  to  all  of  Dr. 
Carson's  allegations,  false  as  I  deem  them  to  be.  The  work  would  have 
been  endless.  Yet  I  have  in  reality  answered  all  his  arguments,  either  by 
more  fully  expanding  my  views  so  as  to  correct  his  misrepresentations,  or 
by  adducing  or  referring  to  new  evidence,  subsequently  produced. — See 
especially  §§  67,  6S. 


PART    II 


CHAPTER     I. 

The  principles  and  leading  positions  of  the  argument  in  regard 
to  the  import  of  (Satri^c^  have  been  stated.  This  argument  in- 
volves three  main  points  :  1.  The  clearing  away  of  irrelevant  or 
false  positions,  and  definitely  stating  the  point  really  at  issue,  and 
the  proposition  to  be  maintained — §§  1-3.  2.  The  antecedent 
probability  of  the  meaning  claimed,  according  to  the  laws  of  lan- 
guage and  of  the  mind,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  subject — §§  4 
-7.  3.  Philological  proof  from  the  writers  of  Alexandrine 
Greek  and  from  the  fathers — §§  8-21.  ^ 

The  Philological  argument  is  therefore  complete,  so  far  as  is 
implied  in  a  statement  of  its  principles  and  leading  positions.  It 
is  not,  however,  complete  so  far  as  its  cumulative  power  is  con- 
cerned. A  large  number  of  facts  still  remains,  which,  in  their 
proper  place,  will  strongly  confirm  every  main  position  1  have  as- 
sumed. 

§  22.  Patristic  Practice. 
But  here  the  regular  operations  of  the  mind  are  interrupted 
by  the  entrance  of  disturbing  forces  of  great  and  bewildering 
power.  In  every  fundamental  investigation  of  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism, three  inquiries  are  commonly  involved  and  combined.  1. 
The  import  of  the  word  (Saitri^c^.  2.  The  original  practice  of 
the  church.  3.  The  full  and  perfect  signification  of  the  rite. 
The  influences  of  these  two  last  inquiries  on  the  question  of  phi- 
lology, I  call  bewildering  and  disturbing  forces— not  because  they 


56  PATRISTIC    PRACTICE.  §  22. 

are  not  important  and  legitimate  objects  of  inquiry  in  their  pro- 
per sphere  ;  and  not  because  they  have  no  bearing  on  the  main 
question  of  the  mode — but  because  they  have  exercised  over  the 
question  of  philology,  an  unauthorized  though  unsuspected  pow- 
er. No  attentive  observer  of  the  operations  of  the  human  mind 
can  have  failed  to  notice,  that  the  impression  of  an  argument, 
true  and  sound  in  itself,  is  often  destroyed  by  the  secret  influence 
of  some  fact  or  principle,  which  does  not  appear  in  the  discussion. 
These  deep  under-currents  have  frequently  a  power  entirely  su- 
perior to  the  logical  force  of  the  argument  presented,  and  pro- 
duce a  state  of  min  1  which,  if  expressed  in  words,  would  be  in 
substance  this  :  "  Ail  this  looks  well  enough  ;  it  is  quite  plausible, 
to  be  sure  ;  but  still  it  cannot  he  true  ;  there  must  be  an  error 
somewhere."  States  of  mind  like  this — felt  but  not  announced 
—often  do  more  to  break  ^'.le  strength  of  an  argument,  than  any 
direct  perception  of  its  falsehood.  So  now,  that  the  philological 
argument  has  been  stated,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  thought  will 
arise  in  many  a  mind  :  "  Well,  after  all,  it  is  a  fact  that  the  ear- 
ly Christians  did  universally  immerse,  and  did  attach  great  im- 
portance to  that  form  ;  and  they  surely  understood  the  i?nport  of 
the  word  as  well  as  loe.  Besides,  the  rite  is  designed  to  represent, 
not  merely  purification  from  sin,  but  purification  in  a  way  signi- 
ficant of  death  and  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  as  we  are  ex- 
pressly told  in  Rom.  vi.  2,  3,  and  Col.  ii.  12.  All  these  learn- 
ed philological  inquiries  are  no  doubt  very  fine,  and  quite  plausi- 
ble ;  but  the  single  expression,  "  hurled  with  Christ  in  haiptism^^^ 
is  enough  to  dissipate  them  all.  Now,  while  these  under-currents 
of  thought  are  overlooked,  it  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  give  to  the 
philological  argument,  however  sound  in  itself,  any  power  at  all. 
As  some  mighty  stream,  undermining  banks,  trees,  and  houses, 
precipitates  them  together  into  the  flood,  and  hurries  them  along 
in  promiscuous  ruin,  so  do  these  deep  under-currents  undermine 
and  lay  prostrate  the  walls  of  the  best-compacted  logical  fiibric. 
Considerations  like  these,  indeed,  produce  a  greater  popular  ef- 


§  23.  FALSE    INFERENCES.  57 

feet  than  reasonings,  however  profound.     The  ideas  lie  upon  the 
surface,  and  are  therefore  easily  stated  and  easily  apprehended. 

'  It  is  essential,  then,  to  inquire  what  are  the  facts  on  the  first 
of  these  points,  and  what  is  their  bearing  on  the  philological  ques- 
tion ?  Having  done  this,  we  may  resume  and  review  our  inves- 
tigations. 

What,  then,  are  the  facts,  as  it  regards  the  practice  of  the  earlier 
ages  of  the  church  ?  I  am  willing  freely  and  fully  to  concede 
that,  in  the  primitive  church,  from  the  earliest  period  of  which 
we  have  any  historical  accounts,  immersion  was  the  mode  gene- 
rally practised,  and,  except  in  extraordinary  cases,  the  only  mode. 
I  do  not  mean  that  these  remarks  shall  apply  to  the  apostolic  age, 
but  to  the  earliest  historical  ages  of  the  uninspired  primitive 
church.  The  practice  of  the  apostolic  age,  I  shall  consider  by 
itself  After  all  that  has  been  said  upon  this  point  by  learned 
men,  it  will  not  be  deemed  necessary  for  me  to  advance  proof  of 
the  position,  that  in  the  primitive  church  immersion  was  the  ge- 
neral mode  of  baptism.  No  one  who  has  candidly  examined  the 
original  sources  of  evidence,  will  entertain  a  doubt.  If  any  one 
does  doubt,  let  him  read  the  articles  in  Suicer  on  avct^utfj^  and 
xarahdig  ;  or,  still  better,  some  of  the  Fathers  themselves.  For 
a  comprehensive,  clear,  and  definite  view  of  the  great  outlines  of 
primitive  practice  in  this  respect,  I  know  of  no  passages  more  full, 
and  at  the  same  time  eloquent,  than  the  sermons  of  Augustine  to 
the  Neophytes,  pp.  97-99,  vol.  i.  supp.  Paris,  1555.  I  do  not 
mean  that  the  early  practice  included  all  which  is  stated  by 
Augustine ;  for  many  superstitious  usages  had,  by  this  time,  be- 
come prevalent.     It  is  the  main  outline  to  which  I  refer. 

§  23.     False  Inferences. 

But  admitting  these  things  to  be  facts,  what  then  ?  Does 
it  follow  of  course,  that  the  Fathers  were  led  to  adopt  this 
form  by  a  belief  that  the  import  of  the  word  /Sa-TTTj^w  is  to  im- 
merse ?     This  I  know  seems  very  generally  to  have  been  taken 

3* 


58  FALSE    INFERENCES.  §  23. 

for  granted  on  both  sides  of  the  question.  For  example,  Profes- 
sor Stuart,  after  an  able  and  clear  exhibition  of  the  proof  that  the 
early  churches  did  baptize  by  immersion,  says :  "  In  what  man- 
ner, then,  did  the  churches  of  Christ,  from  a  very  early  period, 
to  say  the  least,  understand  the  word  /Sa-TrTi^w  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment ?  Plainly  they  construed  it  as  meaning  immersion." 
"  That  the  Greek  Fathers,  and  the  Latin  ones  who  were  familiar 
with  the  Greek,  understood  the  usual  import  of  the  word  /Sa-TTTi'^w, 
would  hardly  seem  to  be  capable  of  a  denial."  Bib.  Rep. Vol. 
iii.  362.  Now,  all  this  is  manifestly  based  on  the  assumption, 
that  the  practice  of  the  Fathers,  in  this  case,  is  an  infallible  index 
of  their  philology;  i.  e.  if  they  did  in  fact  immerse,  they  must  of 
course  have  believed  that  /3a'7rr»^w  means  to  immerse.  Indeed, 
this  seems  generally  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  first  principle,  an 
indisputable  truth.  As  long  as  it  is  so  regarded,  the  facts  already 
stated,  as  to  early  practice,  will  exert  a  strong,  disturbing  influ- 
ence on  the  mind.  The  scholar,  in  the  region  of  philology  and 
logic,  finds  all  plain  ;  but  he  enters  the  dizzy  and  bewildering  re- 
gion of  early  practice,  and  his  brain  reels,  his  energy  is  dissolved, 
and  some  unseen  power  seems  to  be  wresting  his  previous  philo- 
logical conclusions  from  his  grasp.  Indeed,  if  it  is  a  sound  princi- 
ple that  we  must  infer  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers,  as  to  the  im- 
port of  /Sa'TTTj^oj,  from  their  practice,  I  see  not  how  he  can  avoid 
letting  them  go ;  for  of  the  facts  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  it  is 
high  time  to  ask  :  Is  the  principle  sound  ?  is  it  logical  ?  has  it  any 
force  at  all  ?  It  may  seem  adventurous  to  call  in  question  a  princi- 
ple so  generally  received  and  so  firmly  believed.  Nevertheless, 
I  am  compelled  to  say  that  I  cannot  perceive  that  the  position  is 
based  on  any  sound  principle  of  philology  or  logic ;  nay  it  seems 
to  me  that  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  it  is  entirely  illogical 
and  unsound.  1.  Because,  where  a  given  result  may  have  been 
produced  by  many  causes,  it  is  never  logical  to  assume,  without 
proof,  that  it  is  the  result  of  any  one  of  them  alone.  The  proper 
course  is,  to  inquire  which  of  the  possible  causes  was,  in  fact,  the 
real  and  efficient  cause  of  the  result  in  question.     2.  Because,  on 


§  23.  FALSE    INFERENCES.  69 

making  the  inquiry,  it  appears  manifest  to  me,  that  the  practice 
in  question  did  not  originate  in  a  belief  that  the  word  /oa-n'Tj^w 
rrieans  immerse,  but  in  entirely  different  and  independent  causes. 
Suppose  now  the  word  to  mean  to  j)urify,  it  is  neither  impossible 
nor  improbable,  that  certain  local  and  peculiar  causes  may  have 
led  to  some  one  mode  of  purifying  rather  than  another,  and  tha/- 
this  mode  may  have  been  immersion  ;  and  if  all  these  things  may 
have  been  so,  who  has  a  right  to  assume,  without  proof,  that  they 
were  not  so  ?  I  believe  that  they  were.  If  it  is  inquired  :  What 
causes  they  were?  I  answer:  1.  Oriental  usages  and  the  habits 
of  warmer  regions.  2.  A  false  interpretation  of  Rom.  vi.  3,  4, 
and  Col.  ii.  12.  3  A  very  early  habit  of  ascribing  peculiar  vir- 
tue to  external  forms.  The  first  cause  is  sufficient  to  begin  the 
practice ;  the  other  two  to  extend,  perpetuate,  and  confirm  it. 
Now,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  these  causes  did  exist,  and  did  ope- 
rate, and  had  great  power,  then  a  sufficient  account  of  the  origin 
and  progress  of  the  usage  may  he  given  hy  these  alone  ;  and  thus, 
all  presumption  against  the  meaning  I  have  assigned  to  (BaitTi^u, 
or  in  favor  of  the  sense  to  immerse,  will  be  taken  away ;  and 
thus,  the  way  will  be  prepared  to  resume  the  direct  philological 
proof,  that  in  the  earlier  ages  the  word  /Sa'TTTj^w  did  mean  purify. 
But  of  their  existence  or  their  power,  can  there  be  a  doubt  ? 
Did  not  Christianity  begin  in  the  warm  regions  of  the  East,  and 
in  the  midst  of  a  people  whose  climate,  habits,  costume,  and  mode 
of  life  were  all  adapted  to  bathing?  and  was  not  the  practice 
nearly  universal  ?  Hqnce  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than 
its  use  on  convenient  occasions,  as  a  mode  of  religious  purifying ; 
and  if,  as  some  maintain,  the  form  had  been  previously  used  as  a 
religious  rite,  nothing  could  be  more  natural  than  its  adoption  as 
a  mode  of  purifying  in  the  church.  As  to  the  interpretation  of 
Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  as  referring  to  the  external  form, 
all  may  not  be  ready  to  concede  that  it  was  false  ;  yet  that  it  was 
early  prevalent  and  powerful,  no  one,  I  think,  at  all  acquainted 
with  the  facts  of  the  case,  will  deny.  But  of  this,  more  in  ano- 
ther place.     As  to  a  superstitious  attachment  to  forms — who  can 


60  DECISIVE    CASES.  §  24. 

deny  it  ?  nay,  who  that  is  a  Protestant  does  ?  Evidence  of  it 
throngs  on  every  page  that  records  the  early  history  of  the  Church. 
To  omit  all  else,  the  history  of  this  rite  alone  would  furnish  vo- 
lumes of  proof.  Let  the  holy  water — the  baptismal  chrism,  to 
symbolize  and  bestow  the  Holy  Spirit — the  putting  on  of  white 
robes  after  baptism,  to  symbolize  the  putting  on  of  Christ — the 
baptism  of  men  and  women  perfectly  naked,  to  denote  their  entire 
moral  nakedness  before  putting  on  Christ — let  the  anointing  of  the 
eyes  and  ears,  to  denote  the  sanctification  of  the  senses — let  the 
eating  of  honey  and  milk — the  sign  of  the  cross  ;  and,  finally,  let 
baptismal  regeneration — the  sum  and  completion  of  all  these  for- 
mal tendencies — bear  witness  to  the  mournful  truth.  Now,  when 
the  tendencies  to  formalism  and  superstition  were  so  all-pervading 
and  alircst  omnipotent,  what  could  avert  a  blind  and  superstitious 
devotion  to  an  early  form — one  especially  in  which  so  much  was 
supposed  to  be  involved,  both  of  emblematical  import  and  of  sanc- 
tifying power. 

§  24.     Decisive  Cases. 

Having  now  pointed  out  causes,  amply  sufficient  in  extent  and 
power,  to  account  for  the  early  prevalence  of  immersion,  and  thus 
removed  all  presumption  against  the  sense  I  claim,  I  will  resume, 
and  exhibit  more  fully  the  philological  evidence,  that  the  early 
understanding  of  the  church  was,  that  fSaitri^o),  as  a  religious 
term,  did  signify  to  purify.  I  shall,  1,  notice  more  at  large  those 
cases  in  which  it  is  not  only  in  the  highest  degree  probable  that 
fSam-ri^u)  has  the  sense  to  purify,  but  in  which  it  is  positively  ab- 
surd to  assign  it  any  other  meaning.  2.  Show  that  a  very  large 
number  of  coincident  facts  sustains  and  gives  verisimilitude  to  this 
view.  The  argument  already  presented  is,  to  my  own  mind,  per- 
fectly conclusive.  For  it  has  been  shown  that  the  sense  to  purify 
is,  k  priori,  probable,  according  to  the  laws  of  language  and  of  the 
mind,  and  from  the  nature  of  the  subject.  See  §§  4-7.  It  has 
also  been  shown  that  the  fair  and  obvious  import  of  a  large  class 
of  passages  demands  the  sense  ;  that  the  coincidence  of  so  many 


§  25.  BAPTISM    OF    BLOOD.       CASE    OF    CHRIST.  61 

separate  probabilities  brings  together  an  array  of  proof  that  can- 
not be  resisted  ;  and,  also,  that  no  opposite  probabilities  exist. 
See  §§  8-21.  Still,  it  may  be  felt,  if  not  said,  how  much  better, 
in  a  case  so  important,  to  have  proof  so  clear,  unequivocal,  and 
decided,  that  the  opposite  sense  shall  not  only  be  highly  improba- 
ble, but  absolutely  impossible.  Though  I  by  no  means  admit 
the  justice  of  this  demand — because  hundreds  and  thousands  of 
senses  are  daily  admitted  on  evidence  far  less  ample  than  that 
already  given,  and  to  admit  the  necessity  of  such  proof  to  estab- 
lish a  meaning  would  subvert  all  principles  of  sound  philology — 
yet,  as  the  materials  for  such  proof  exist,  it  seems  appropriate 
here  to  present  them. 

§25.     Baptism  of  Blood.     Case  of  Christ. 

To  perceive  fully  the  force  of  these,  it  is  necessary  to  notice,  1. 
The  source  whence  they  are  derived,  which  is  ancient  usage,  as 
it  regards  the  baptism  of  blood  :  2.  The  cases  to  which  they 
relate,  which  are  two;  (1)  the  bloody  baptism  of  Christ ;  (2)  the 
bloody  baptism  of  the  martyrs  :  3.  Their  views  in  relation  to  this 
subject.  They  apply  the  word  baptism  merely  to  the  act  of  mak- 
ing an  atonement  by  shedding  blood,  even  where  no  one  is  spoken 
of,  either  as  sprinkled  by  it  or  immersed  in  it,  and  when  the 
only  external  act  spoken  of  is  totally  at  war  with  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion. In  cases  of  this  kind,  no  sense  is  possible  but  xa&apd^ios, 
which  is  the  established  sacrificial  term  for  an  atonement,  as  I 
have  already  shown,  §  12.  Let  us  then  begin  with  the  case  of 
our  Saviour,  of  whose  bloody  baptism  they  so  often  speak.  He 
shed  his  blood  for  sins,  and  this  is  called  xa^a^itf/xo'^,  in  the  word 
of  God.  Heb.  i.  5.  Now,  if  they  call  the  mere  act  of  shedding 
his  blood  a  ^acrTiVfAa,  it  is  totally  impossible  that  it  should  be 
taken  in  any  except  the  sacrificial  sense,  xa&cc^KfiJ.6g.  But  in  Ori- 
gen,  Hom.  7,  on  Judges  vi.,  occurs  a  long  passage  on  the  baptism 
of  blood,  in  which  this  very  usage  of  language  occurs.  Speaking 
of  Luke  xii.  50,  he  says :  "  Pertendit  enim  nostra  probatio  non 


62  BAPTISM    OF    BLOOD.       CASE    OF    CHRIST.  §  25. 

usque  ad  verbera  solum,  sed  usque  ad  profusionem  sanguinis  per- 
venit.  Quia  et  Christus,  quern  sequimur,  pro  redemptione  nostra 
effudit  sanguinem  suum,  ut  inde  exeamus  loti  sanguine  nostro. 
Baptisma  enim  sanguinis  solum  est,  quod  nos  puriores  reddat, 
quam  aquse  baptismus  reddit.  Et  hoc  ego  non  prsesumo,  sed 
Scriptura  refert,  dicente  domino  ad  discipulos  :  Baptismum  habeo 
baptizari,  quod  vos  nescitis ;  et  quomodo  urgeo  ut  perficiatur. 
Vides  ergo  quia  profusionem  sanguinis  sui  baptisma  nominavit.^^ 
"  Our  probation  extends,  not  only  to  stripes,  but  to  the  shedding 
of  blood,  for  Christ  whom  we  follow,  shed  his  blood  for  our  re- 
demption, in  order  that  we  may  leave  this  world  washed  in  our 
own  blood.  For  it  is  the  baptism  of  blood  alone,  which  renders 
us  more  pure  than  the  baptism  of  water.  Nor  do  I  say  this  pre- 
sumptuously, but  the  Scripture  authorizes  it,  by  the  statement  of 
our  Lord  to  his  disciples :  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with, 
which  ye  know  not.  You  see,  therefore,  that  he  called  the  shed- 
ding  of  his  blood  a  baptism."  Here  observe,  1.  That  the  mind 
is  fixed  intently  and  alone  on  the  effusion  of  Mood.  2.  He 
expressly  states,  that  Christ  calls  this  shedding  of  Mood  a  Miptism. 
3.  By  a  reference  to  other  parts  of  his  writings,  his  meaning  is 
fixed  beyond  dispute.  He  uses  dia  after  (^aitridiiM,  as  do  John 
of  Damascus,  Athanasius,  and  others,  so  as  to  render  impossible 
the  idea  immersion.  Origen,  Vol.  iv.  p.  156,  Ed.  Delarue,  Paris, 
1733,  TO  Ts'Xsiov  l3a<TfTi(f^oi  8ia  tov  jULutf<rr]pjou  <ifa6ovs-  "  The  perfect 
purification  by  the  mystery  of  his  sufferings."  John  of  Damas- 
cus, Vol.  i.  p.  261,  Paris,  1712  :  to  ^anrnd^oL  Si'  a'n^aros  xa/  fxap- 
Tupi'ou  0  xat  0  Xpitfro^  virsp  tjjuiojv  s^aitrlduro.  "  The  purification 
by  blood  and  martyrdom,  by  which  Christ  purified  himself  for 
us."  Athanasius,  Vol.  ii.  p.  286,  Paris,  1^698  :  to  (Ba'ttrid^a  dicL 
(xapTUp/ou,  xa\  al^Mrog.  "  The  purification  by  martyrdom  and 
blood."  In  all  these  cases  the  use  of  Sia  with  the  Genitive  ren- 
ders  the  sense  immersion  impossible.  See  also  §  64  at  the 
end.  4.  The  only  external  act  spoken  of  is  outpouring ;  and, 
surely,  to  call  this  an  immersion  is  absurd.  Here,  then,  an 
impossiUlity  of  the  sense  immersion  is  clearly  proved.     5.  But, 


§  26.  BAPTISBI    OF    BLOOD.       CASE    OF    MARTYRS.  63 

give  to  baptisma  the  sense  xa&a^i(f^6g,  and  all  is  harmonious 
and  plain  ;  for  an  outpouring  of  blood  is  a  xaduPK^ixos  in  the 
sacrificial  sense,  i.  e.  an  atonement.  In  Heb.  i.  3,  xa^a^itf/xov 
itoro(fciiis\/os  Twv  otfxa^i-iwv  Tjiawv  is  applied  to  Christ  in  this  very 
sense.  Let  now  the  passages  from  Chiysostom,  Gregory  Naz., 
and  Theophylact  be  re-examined,  and  carefully  compared  with 
these.  §  xxif.  2,  3.  Those  from  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact 
both  relate  to  the  baptism  of  blood,  and  refer  to  passages  in 
Matthew  and  Mark,  parallel  in  sense  to  that  in  Luke,  to  which 
Origen  refers— Mark  x.  38,  39,  Matthew  xx.  22,  23.  So  that 
their  usage  of  /SocTi'Tio'fxo^  to  denote  xa^aPicf^xos,  is  certainly  and 
undeniably  the  same  with  that  of  Origen.  By  Gregory  Naz.  this 
same  sacrificial  sense  is  just  as  clearly  extended  to  the  baptism 
of  water ;  for  he  says :  •'  He  did  not  need  purification)  i.  e.  for- 
giveness of  sins)  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world."  Two 
points  ai'e  now  perfectly  established.  1.  Ba'jrrKf^os  has  the  sacri- 
ficial sense  xai^a^KT/xoV.  2.  In  the  description  given  of  the  rite  by 
Gregory  Naz.,  not  only  are  xa^ai^w  and  xa6a^(fig  used  in  the 
place  of  f:iairTi^o  and  (3a'n'<rt(tii6s,  but  they  are  used  as  perfectly 
synonymous. 

§  26.     Baptism  of  Blood.      Case  of  Martyrs, 

But  let  us  look  once  more  at  this  same  usage,  not  only  in  the 
case  of  Christ,  but  also  of  the  martyrs  who  followed  his  steps. 
In  order  to  do  this  the  more  clearly,  let  us  for  a  moment  consider 
the  feelings  of  the  early  ages  as  it  regards  martyrdom.  The 
following  points  are  here  to  be  noticed.  1.  The  religion  of 
Christ  began  with  a  solemn  act  of  martyrdom — even  that  of  the 
Son  of  God.  2.  Christ  knew  that  multitudes  of  his  disciples 
were  soon  to  be  called  to  endure  the  same  fate.  3.  Both  by  his 
example  and  also  by  his  spirit-stirring  words,  he  provided  great 
and  powerful  motives  to  excite  his  disciples  to  meet  death,  in  its 
most  terrific  forms,  without  weakness  or  fear.  4.  These  motives 
were  not  only  effectual  to  produce  the  desired  result  in  multi- 
tudes of  instances,  but  the  minds  of  the  early  Christians  were  so 


64  BAPTISM  OF  BLOOD.   CASE  OF  MARTYRS.        §  26. 

deeply  affected  and  so  highly  excited  on  this  subject,  that  soon 
they  went  even  to  the  extreme  of  undue  eagerness  for  such  a 
death.  5.  This  disposition  was  increased  by  a  false  construction 
put  on  the  words  of  Paul  :  "  I  am  ready  to  be  offered." — 2  Tim. 
iv.  6.  "  Yea,  and  if  I  be  offered  up,"  etc.— Phil.  ii.  7.  Also 
on  the  words  of  Christ:  "Can  ye  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
wherewith  I  am  baptized  ?"  which,  as  we  have  shown,  they  un- 
derstood as  :  "  Can  ye  be  purified  with  the  purification  wherewith 
I  am  purified  ?"  and  regarded  as  an  inquiry,  whether  they  were 
ready  to  be  purified  in  their  own  blood,  as  he  was  in  his.  See, 
in  the  preceding  passages  of  Origen  :  "  loti  sanguine  nostro." 
Hence  they  ascribed  to  the  death  of  a  martyr  a  kind  of  atoning 
power,  and  spoke  of  it  as  a  xa6api<fix6s  or  (3aitTi<fix6g,  in  the  sacrifical 
sense.  6.  This  purification  was  supposed  to  avail  especially  for 
the  martyr  ;  so  that,  if  he  had  never  been  purified  in  water  for  the 
remission  of  his  sins,  they  were  remitted  by  his  purification  in  his 
own  blood.  Hence,  the  universal  idea  of  a  bloody  baptism  was, 
that  the  martyr  was  purified,  or  purged  from  sin,  by  his  own 
blood.  7.  It  was  also  supposed,  that  the  deaths  of  martyrs  had  a 
purifying  power  on  behalf  of  others.  Now  the  correctness  of 
these  views  is  not  the  question.  They  were  evidently  false. 
Our  only  inquiry  is :  In  what  language  were  they  expressed  ? 
And  the  answer  is  as  before ;  Ba':rTj^w  and  /3a.<n'<r»o'/xa  are  freely 
used  to  denote  the  act  of  purifying,  or  purging  from  sin  by  the 
shedding  of  blood  ;  and  that  in  such  circumstances,  all  attempts 
to  introduce  the  idea  of  immersion  are  vain.  Origen,  on  John 
i.  29,  speaking  of  Jesus,  the  Lamb  of  God,  says :  "  Et  sane 
hujus  victimae  cognatae  sunt  cseterae,  quarum  symbola  sunt 
legales:  per  cseteras  vero  victimas  huic  victimae  cognatas, 
effusiones  intelligo  sanguinis  generosorum  martyrum  ;"  and  after 
a  few  lines  he  adds  :  "  Quae  purgant  eos  pro  quibus  offeruntur." 
"  And  truly  the  other  victims,  of  whom  the  legal  victims  are 
symbols,  are  related  to  this  victim  (i.  e.  Christ).  By  other 
victims  related  to  this,  I  understand  the  shedding  of  the  blood  of 
generous  martyrs — who  make  expiation  for  those  on  whose  behalf 
they  are  offered."     In  Latin  the  idea  of  expiation  is  conveyed  by 


§26.  BAPTISM    OF    BLOOD.       CASE    OF    MARTYRS.  65 

purgo — in  Greek,  xa^ajpw.  Just  before,  Christ  as  a  victim,  is 
called  xa^ap(r»ov  tou  oXou  xoVju.ou,  a  purification  of  the  whole 
world.  Again,  in  his  notes  on  Matthew  xx.  22,  23,  he  says : 
"  Quod  autem  quis  in  passione  remissionem  accipit  peccatorum 
baptismus  est."  "  But  because  any  one  by  suffering  receives 
remission  of  sins  it  is  a  baptism "  (that  is  an  expiation).  He 
assigns  this  reason  :  "  Si  enim  baptismus  indulgentiam  pecca- 
torum promittit,  sicut  accepimus  de  baptismo  aquse  et  spiritus, 
remissionem  autem  accipit  peccatorum,  et  qui  martyrii  suscipit 
baptismus,  sine  dubio  ipsum  martyrium  rationabiliter  baptismus 
appellatur."  "  For  if  the  rite  of  absolution  promises  the  for- 
giveness of  sins,  as  we  have  been  taught  concerning  the  purifi- 
cation of  water  and  the  Spirit,  and  if  he  who  receives  the  purifi- 
cation of  martyrdom,  also  receives  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  with- 
out doubt,  martyrdom  itself  is  reasonably  called  an  absolution  " 
(or  a  baptism).  Here  note,  1.  Previously,  as  we  have  seen,  he 
said  of  Christ,  "  profusionem  sanguinis  baptisma  nominavit."  Here 
he  conveys  the  same  idea  in  other  words,  when  he  says,  "  Martyrium 
baptismus  appellatur."  2.  He  gives  us  express  reasons  for  this  use 
of  terms.  The  martyrs  are  victims  like  Christ ;  like  his,  their  death 
has  an  atoning  or  purging  power,  and  because  of  this  power  their 
death  is  to  them  a  baptism,  i.  e.  a  purification.  Indeed,  had  Origen 
designed  to  give  a  concise  definition  of  the  sacrificial  sense  which 
I  have  assigned  to  the  word  (BairrKfixog,  he  could  not  have  been  more 
exact.  "  Quod  autem  quis  in  passione  remissionem  accipit  pec- 
catorum baptismus  est."  Because  any  one  through  his  suffering 
receives  the  remission  of  sins,  it  is  a  purification — a  xa^apicT/jioV — 
a  fSuirrKfii.o^ .  It  is  not  called  a  baptism,  because  the  martyr  is 
immersed,  for  in  fact  he  is  not.  This  is  not  even  thought  of;  it  is 
totally  out  of  the  mind.  But  it  is  so  called  simply  because,  by 
suflTering,  by  effusion  of  blood,  he  secures  the  forgiveness  of  sin.* 
But  that  effusion  of  blood,  which  secures  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 

*  Hence  the  expressions  to  P'n:Tiana  6id  naprvpiov,  or  did  naOovs,  or  6i* 
aijiaTos.  Purification  by  martyrdom,  by  suffering,  by  blood,  not  immersion 
in  martyrdom,  &c.  __   


06  BAPTISM    OF    BLOOD.       CASE    OF    MARTYRS.  §  26. 

is  always  called  xaSapKfp.6g,  and  never  an  immersion,  because  in 
fact  there  is  no  immersion  in  the  case.  An  expiatory  offering  is 
never  called  an  immersion.  The  making  an  atonement  by  blood, 
is  never  called  the  making  of  an  immersion.  He  who  pardons 
through  blood,  is  always  said  to  purify,  to  purge,  to  cleanse  by 
blood,  but  never  to  immerse  by,  or  with,  or  in  blood.  Now, 
though  the  idea  that  the  blood  of  martyrs  has  an  atoning  or 
purging  power  is  false,  yet  it  does  not  in  the  least  diminish  the 
force  of  the  argument.  We  are  inquiring  how  Origen  expressed 
his  belief  that  the  blood  of  martyrs  was  a  purgation  from  sin,  and 
not  whether  his  opinions  were  correct.  In  perfect  accordance 
with  these  ideas,  Chrysostom  says  of  the  martyrs  in  the  hour  of 
death,  "  that  they  have  the  Spirit  copiously,"  that  "  their  sins  are 
taken  away,"  that  "  there  is  a  wonderful  purification  of  the  mind," 
xa&apixog,  and  "  as  others  are  purified,  (Sairrl^ovTai,  in  water,  these 
are  washed,  Xo;;ovTaj,  in  their  own  blood." 

So  Gregory  Naz.,  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  blood,  says :  "  it 
is  more  august  than  the  rest,"  those  of  water,  tears,  etc. — 
because,  after  it  the  martyr  is  polluted  no  more  (ou  jULoXuvsrai). 
The  same  ideas  are  also  found  in  the  writings  of  Augustine,  and 
in  those  of  his  antagonists,  thus  proving  themselves  to  be  the 
prevailing  ideas  of  the  age.  See  his  work  De  Civitate  Dei,  lib. 
13,  cap.  7,  also  lib.  2,  cap.  23,  of  his  treatise  contra  literas  Peti- 
liani,  where  Petilianus  uses  the  expression  :  "  Similes  Christo 
martyres,  quos  post  aquam  veri  baptismi,  sanguis  baptista  per- 
fundit,"  i.  e.  whom  their  own  blood,  as  a  purifier,  cleanses  or 
washes.  So  for  indeed  was  this  idea  carried,  that,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  purification  by  blood  was  even  more  desired  than  the 
purification  by  water,  though  to  this  also  they  attached  an  exag- 
gerated, and  almost  miraculous  power.  Nor  have  I  found  any 
evidence  that  the  passages  in  Luke  xii.  50,  Mark  x.  38,  39,  Matt. 
XX.  22,  23,  were  ever  understood  by  any  of  the  Fathers  in  the 
sense  either  of  immersion  or  overwhelming.  They  seem  uni- 
versally to  have  referred  them  to  the  baptism  of  blood,  and  to 
have  taken  the  words   /Sa-TTTjCjuooj  and  ISaifrit^o)  in  the  sacrificial 


§    26.  BAPTISM    OF    BLOOD.       CASE    OF    MARTYRS.  67 

sense — to  purify.  Now  I  do  not  think  that  in  these  passages  the 
words  have  that  sense.  I  regard  them  as  instances  in  which  the 
word  is  used  in  the  sense  to  overwhehTi  with  cares,  and  agony  of 
body  and  mind.  But  this  only  shows  how  deeply  fixed  and  strong 
was  the  usus  loquendi  for  wdiich  I  contend  ;  for  it  was  so  powerful 
as  even  to  overrule  the  true  sense,  in  cases  where  the  word  obvi- 
ously departs  from  the  sense  to  purify.*  And  if  it  was  sufficiently 
powerful  to  force  the  sense  to  purify  on  the  word,  even  when  it 
does  not  belong  there,  are  we  to  suppose  that  it  was  not  powerful 
enough  to  retain  it,  in  instances  where  all  the  facts  of  the  case 
show  that  it  truly  belongs  ?  In  view  of  these  facts,  which  are  a 
small  part  only  of  those  which  might  be  adduced,  I  am  utterly 
unable  to  resist  the  conviction,  that  to  purify,  was  clearly,  and  so 
far  as  I  have  observed,  universally  the  religious  sense  of  the  word 
iSairri^u  among  the  Fathers. 

I  do  not  indeed  affirm  that  they  did  not,  any  of  them,  at  any 
time,  use  it  as  a  religious  term  to  denote  immersion.  To  say  this 
intelligently,  would  require  a  certainty  that  every  usage  of  it  by 
the  Fathers  had  been  seen,  which,  in  my  case,  certainly  is  not 
true.  But  I  must  say,  that  even  if  such  cases  can  be  found,  they 
will  not  disprove  my  position.  They  can  only  prove  inconsistent 
usage  ;  and  this  I  have  already  admitted  would  be  nothing  strange, 
and  might  even  be  expected  in  writers  so  numerous  and  so 
various.  Still,  when  I  consider  the  extreme  power  of  the  usage 
which  I  have  proved,  when  I  find  it  clearly  and  decidedly,  even 
in  the  eleventh  century,  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  a  general 
perception  of  the  true  sense  was  not  lost  or  obscured,  till  the 
Greek  language  itself  sank  in  the  ruins  of  the  Eastern  enfjiire  ; 
and  that  the  present  state  of  opinion  has  been  produced  by  party 
spirit,  and  by  the  mistakes  of  learned  men  to  whom  the  Greek 
was  a  dead  language,  and  who,  being  familiar  with  the  style  and 
usage  of  classic  Greek,  as  that  which  holds  the  earliest  and 
primary  place  in  the  modern  systems  of  education,  have  allowed 

*  Reflection  has  convinced  me  that  the  Fathers  are  right,  and  that  in 
these  passages  also,  (SanTi^o)  has  the  sense  to  purify. 


68  PRINCIPLES,    AS    TO    CO-EXISTENT"  SENSES.  §  27. 

it  to  expel  the  true  spiritual  and  sacred  sense  of  the  word,  and  in 
place  of  it,  to  introduce  a  merely  physical,  and,  too  often,  barren 
and  profitless  external  act. 

In  opposition  to  this,  the  opinion  of  the  Greek  church  is  often 
alleged  as  decisive  in  favor  of  the  meaning  immerse.  Being  by 
najne  the  Greek  church,  it  is  inferred  that  they  must,  o£  course, 
be  good  judges  of  the  import  of  a  Greek  word.  In  reply  to  this, 
I  would  ask  :  Is  modern  Italian  ancient  Latin  ?  If  not,  neither  is 
modern  Greek  ancient  Greek.  That  modern  Greek  resembles 
its  parent  stock,  more  than  modern  Italian  does  the  Latin,  I  do 
not  deny.  But  the  resemblance  is  not  such  that  the  opinion  of  a 
modern  Greek  scholar,  on  a  point  like  this,  is  worth  any  more 
than  that  of  a  modern  German,  Italian,  or  English  scholar.  No 
man  can  form  an  opinion  on  this  subject  except  by  a  study  of  the 
facts  found  in  the  ancient  writers  who  exhibit  the  usage  in  ques- 
tion ;  and  his  opinion  is  worth  most  who  most  carefully  investi- 
gates, compares,  classifies,  and  judges  in  view  of  the  whole  case. 
And  if  this  be  so,  the  opinions  of  the  modern  Greek  church,  un- 
sustained  by  argument,  ought  to  have  no  peculiar  weight.  Their 
proficiency  in  philological  studies  certainly  does  not  exceed  that 
of  other  European  scholars,  to  say  nothing  of  those  of  America. 

§  27.     Principles,  as  to  co-existent  senses. 

The  passage  in  2  Kings  v.  14,  is  often  alleged  as  decisive 
proof  that  (Saitri^u  means  immerse.  The  facts  are  these.  The 
prophet  commanded  Naaman  to  wash  seven  times  in  Jordan,  using 
f  n^.*  In  obeying  the  command  it  is  said  bitJ/^'^  Sept.  s^a'xr'Ktaro 
seven  times.  It  is  said  to  be  universally  conceded  that  b^Q  means 
immerse  only.  I  reply,  it  is  not  so  conceded.  Even  Dr.  Carson 
allows  that  it  has  passed  to  the  sense  to  dye,  without  respect  to 
mode.  Why  then  could  it  not  pass  to  the  sense  to  wash,  without 
respect  to  mode  ?  Scholars  of  the  first  eminence  believe  and  af- 
firm that  it  did.  Of  these  it  is  enough  to  mention  Suicer.  He 
affirms  that   the  word   is  here  the  equivalent   both   of  yn^  and 


§  28.  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  69 

fSa'Ttri^u,  in  the  sense  to  wash.*  Nor  can  it  be  disproved,  for  it  is 
in  perfect  analogy  with  other  known  facts  in  language.  Even  if 
the  sense  immerse  is  here  admitted,  it  only  proves  the  coexistence 
of  the  secular  sense  immerse  with  the  religious  sense  purify,  and 
that  in  this  case  there  was  a  desire  to  fix  the  mind  on  the  mode  of 
washing.  Take  a  parallel  case.  Dr.  Carson  admits  the  coex- 
istence in  (SaTTTu  of  the  sense  to  dye  and  to  dip.  Suppose  now  an 
order  to  dye  a  cloth  is  given,  and  in  narrating  its  execution,  it  is 
said,  a  man  dipped  it  seven  times  in  a  dye-tub,  and  in  each  case 
/Sa-TTTw  is  used.  Does  the  fact  that  it  means  dip  in  the  last  case 
prove  that  it  does  not  mean  dye  in  the  first  ?  Cannot  two  different 
meanings  of  a  word  coexist  even  in  the  same  sentence  ?  Can  it 
not  be  said,  I  drank  out  of  this  spring  last  spring  1  How  then 
could  the  use  of  the  word  (Saitri^c,}  to  denote  an  act  here,  prove 
tl.at  it  does  not  mean  purify  elsewhere  ?  On  neither  ground,  then, 
has  the  passage  any  force.  For  first,  it  cannot  be  proved  that  the 
word  here  means  to  dip  ;  and  secondly,  if  it  could,  it  would  be 
nothing  to  the  purpose. 

§  28.     Coincident  Facts. 

It  only  remains  that  I  adduce,  as  I  proposed,  a  large  amount  of 
coincident  facts,  sustaining  and  giving  verisimilitude  to  the  whole. 

1.  The  early  and  decidedly  predominant  idea  of  the  rite  was, 
that  it  was  the  appointed,  and  almost  the  only  means  of  obtaining 
the  remission  of  sins.  How  natural,  now,  that  its  name  should 
indicate  this  idea  ?  It  does,  if  fBwn'TKfix.og  is  taken  in  the  sacrificial 
sense  xa^a^iCjuioV,  but  not  if  taken  in  the  sense  immersion.  A 
proof  that  (SaitrKfixos  is  taken  in  the  sacrificial  sense  is  found  in  its 
equivalents  in  Latin  and  Greek  ;  remissio  peccatorum,  acpscfis 
a/xapTJOJv,  ajLiapTiwv  xadapcfig,  oi(ps(jig  -rXiifjL/xsXyiiuLaTwv.  These  and 
similar  phrases  are  used  as  the  names  of  the  rite,  and  are  obvi- 
ously mere  equivalents  of  xa6ccpi(f^6g.     See  §  55. 

*  Fuerstius,  in  the  learned  lexicon  contained  in  his  Concordance,  defines 
'^'n.'o  rigare,  tingere,  perfundere,  and  last  of  all  immergere.  To  wet,  to 
wash,  to  perfuse,  to  immerse. 


70  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  §  28. 

2.  The  words  with  which  /Sa-Tr'T/^w  is  interchanged,  in  giving 
variety  to  the  style,  and  preventing  the  too  frequent  repetition  of 
the  same  word,  show  that  it  is  used  by  the  Fathers  in  the  sense  of 
purify.  In  such  interchanges,  we  always  expect  the  fundamental 
idea  of  the  leading  term  to  be  retained  ;  or  some  one  into  which 
it  easily  passes,  and  with  which  it  has  a  natural  affinity.  The 
class  of  words  that  has  an  affinity  to  the  idea  xa^aPi'^w,  is  very 
large.  In  Greek  they  are  Xoi^w,  ayia^u,  ayvj'^w,  dvaysvvaw,  etc.; 
in  Latin,  purgo,  mundo,  emundo,  lavo,  abluo,  diluo,  eluo, 
perfundo ;  together  with  the  nouns  and  participles  derived  from 
them,  as  Xour^ov,  ayvicfixog,  etc.,  purgatio,  lavatio,  lavacrum,  eniun- 
datus,  ablutus,  etc.  The  class  of  words  that  has  an  affinity  to 
the  idea  immersion  is  small,  as  it  is  a  mere  external  act.  Now 
let  three  facts  be  noted.  1,  The  range  of  equivalents,  or  substi- 
tutes for  /3a':rT/^w,  is  in  fact  large.  2.  They  are  all  of  the  class 
having  affinity  to  xa^a^i^w  ;  and  there  is  a  great  readiness  to  pass 
into  any  mode  of  speech  equivalent  or  analogous  to  it,  or  derivable 
from  it.  3.  There  is  no  readiness  to  use  equivalents  of  immersion, 
except  in  cases  in  which,  for  some  particular  reason,  it  is  intended 
to  give  prominence  to  the  form  of  purifying.  Let  any  one  read 
Augustine's  controversies  with  the  Donatists,  and  his  various 
works  on  baptism,  the  works  of  Origen,  or  any  of  the  Greek  Fa- 
thers who  have  written  much  on  the  subject,  and  he  will  easily 
find  the  same  thing.  It  is  impossible  by  a  few  quotations  to  give 
an  idea  of  the  impression  produced  by  noticing  such  facts  in  pas- 
sages of  considerable  extent. 

3.  When  it  is  desired  to  speak  definitely  of  immersion  as  an 
act,  [BwjrrKfixos  is  not  generally  used,  but  xaTcuSutfig ;  and  for  emer- 
sion, ava(Juo'ij.  See  Suicer  on  these  words.  Why  is  this,  if 
(3a<7rri(r^.6s  never  means  anything  but  immersion  ? 

4.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  Can.  L., 
the  expression  Tpia  ^a-jfriVjULara  ^kiag  ixvrjdsus  occurs,  in  which  <rpja 
(3airli(rix.ala  denotes  three  acts  of  immersion,  but  not  the  name  of 
the  rite  ;  for  in  trine  immersion,  three  immersions  are  necessary 
to  one  purification.     And  if  the  expression  were  understood  to 


§  28.  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  71 

mean  three  purifications,  the  idea  would  be  false  ;  for  three  im- 
mersions make  but  one  purification.  Lest  any  misunderstanding 
should  arise,  a  note  was  deemed  necessary  by  Zonaras,  informing 
the  reader  that  (Sa-usVidiJ.ala  here  means  ycaloLdudsig,  and  fj-u'/io'tj  de- 
notes the  rite  as  a  whole,  i.  e.  is  used  for  (Sa-mlicfixa.  He  there- 
fore says,  Ipia  (^a-mlldiiala,  ivlav&a  7dcg  IpsTg  xalado<fsig  (pyiCi'v.  As 
much  as  to  say  (Sa-uilKf^a,  is  not  here  used  in  its  common  import, 
but  denotes  the  act  of  immersion,  so  that  the  passage  means,  not 
three  purifications,  as  you  might  suppose,  but  three  immersions 
and  one  purification.  Why  this  care  to  explain,  and  to  state  that 
^oizili(fixala,  in  this  case — ivluv&a — means  immersions,  if  it  never 
has  any  other  meaning  ?  But  if  its  common  meaning  is  purifica- 
tion, all  is  plain.  We  see  too  the  use  of  the  word  xara^utfj?.  It 
was  uni vocal  :  jSairriG'ixos  was  equivocal,  and  in  its  common  re- 
ligious sense  denoted  purification. 

From  this  case  in  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  and  from  the 
closing  remarks  on  /Sa-rr/^w  in  2  Kings  v.  14,  the  following  gene- 
ral principles  may  be  derived,  which  will  be  of  great  use  in  a 
critical  investigation  of  the  meanings  of  this  word  in  the  Fathers. 
1.  In  speaking  of  baptism,  the  two  senses,  immerse  and  purify, 
are  sometimes  both  used.  2.  They  are  applied  to  the  rite  in  dif- 
ferent ways,  and  for  different  ends.  Taken  in  the  sense  of  pu- 
rify, /Sa-Tr-rj^oj  denotes  the  real  import  of  the  rite  and  the  thing  en- 
joined, and  is  used  in  the  sacrificial  and  religious  sense  ;  but 
when  it  denotes  the  act  of  immersion,  it  is  not  used  to  denote  the 
real  import  of  the  rite,  nor  in  the  religious  sense,  but  simply  to 
denote  a  physical  act,  i.  e.  a  mode  in  which  purification  may  be 
performed.  For  example,  suppose  an  ancient  bishop  to  have  or- 
dered a  priest  to  purify,-  i.  e.  baptize  a  man.  The  priest  obeys, 
and  immerses  him  three  times,  according  to  the  principles  of  trine 
immersion  ;  and  in  describing  rtiis  trine  immersion,  uses  the  word 
jSa-TTTi^w  in  the  sense  of  immerse.  Here  both  senses  of  the  word 
are  used  in  relation  to  the  same  rite.  In  the  first  instance,  it  is 
used  in  the  sacred  sense  of  purify  ;  in  the  second,  in  the  secular 
sense  to  denote  a  7node  of  purifying.     3.  Whenever  (oa-ffrKfiiarcc 


72  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  §  28. 

is  used  with  the  numeral  three,  in  describing  a  single  baptism,  of 
course  it  is  used  in  the  secular  sense,  as  the  name  of  an  act ;  be- 
cause in  such  a  case,  the  purijicatmi  is  but  one,  whilst  the  immer- 
sions are  three.  4.  To  prove  the  existence  of  the  secular  sense 
as  indicating  the  existing  mode  of  a  religious  washing,  does  not 
disprove  the  existence  of  the  religious  sense  as  the  name  of  the  rite 
itself  This  shows  the  fallacy  of  all  arguments  based  on  2  Kings 
V.  14.  5.  To  guard  against  the  ambiguity  produced  by  apply- 
ing the  same  word  to  the  rite  in  two  senses,  xaTaSu(fig  was  used 
to  denote  immersion,  leaving  to  ^k'n'ritfi^a  the  religious  sense  of 
purification. 

5.  Although  immersion  was  deemed  of  immense  importance, 
yet  its  necessity  was  never  defended  on  philological  grounds  ;  and 
leave  was  conceded  to  sprinkle,  in  extraordinary  cases,  on  such 
grounds  as  plainly  show  that  they  did  not  feel  bound  by  the  im- 
port of  the  word.  Hear  Cyprian  :  "  Neque  enim  sic  in  Sacra- 
mento salutari,  delictorum  contagia,  ut  in  lavacro  carnali  et  secu- 
lari,  sordes  cutis  et  corporis  abluuntur,  ut  aphronitris  et  cseteris 
quoque  adjumentis  et  solio  et  piscina  opus  sit,  quibus  ablui  et 
mundari  corpusculum  possit.  Aliter  pectus  credentis  abluitur, 
aliter  mens  hominis  per  fidei  meritum  mundatur."  Notice  now, 
that  this  whole  passage,  designed  to  prove  that  a  man  may  be  bap- 
tized by  sprinkling,  depends  for  its  force  entirely  on  assigning  to 
the  word  the  sense  to  purify.  His  argument  in  brief  is  this  ;  the 
power  of  baptism  to  purify  from  sin,  does  not  depend  on  the  quan- 
tity of  water  used,  but  upon  the  internal  faith  of  the  person  bap- 
tized. "In  baptism,"  he  says,  "the  pollution  of  sin  is  not  wash- 
ed away,  as  the  pollution  of  the  body  and  skin  is  washed  away  in 
an  external,  physical  bath,  so  that  there  is  need  of  saltpetre  (or 
nitre  (see  Jer.  ii.  22),  and  other  auxiliary  means,  and  a  bath  or 
pool,  in  which  the  body  can  be  washed  and  purified.  Far  other- 
wise is  the  breast  of  the  believer  washed ;  far  otherwise  is  the 
mind  of  a  man  purified  from  sin  by  the  merits  of  faith."  From 
all  this  he  inferred  that  a  man  might  properly  be  baptized,  if 
necessary,  by  sprinkling.     But  how  could  he  do  this,  if  he  knew 


§  28.  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  73 

that  the  command  was  not  to  purify  but  to  immerse  ?  On  tliis 
ground  all  such  reasoning  would  be  vain.  Any  one  could  have 
replied  :  "  The  command  is  not  to  purify,  but  to  immerse  ;  and 
you  cannot  immerse  without  immersion  ;  and  sprinkling  is  no 
immersion  at  all."  But  such  an  idea  does  not  seem  to  have  en- 
tered Cyprian's  mind.  To  him  plainly  the  only  command  was  a 
command  to  purify.  The  word  baptize  does  not  indeed  occur ; 
but  evident  synonymes  of  it  are  used,  as  abluo  and  mundo.  I 
know  not  how  we  can  obtain  stronger  testimony  to  the  prevailing 
opinion  of  the  age  than  this ;  and  it  is  the  stronger  because  indi- 
rect and  undesigned. 

6.  In  explaining  the  similitude  between  baptism  and  the  salva 
tion  of  Noah  in  the  ark,  also  between  baptism  and  the  passage  of 
the  Israelites  through  the  Red  Sea — 1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21,  and  1  Cor. 
X.  1,  2 — Noah  and  the  Israelites  are  not  looked  on  as  immersed, 
but  merely  as  imrijied,  or  saved  ;  and  that  too  by  the  same  ele- 
ment which  overwhelmed  and  destroyed  the  enemies  of  God. 
They  even  go  so  far  as  to  speak  of  the  ivicked  as  immersed,  by 
way  of  antithesis  to  the  righteous,  who  are  not  immersed,  but  only 
purified  and  saved.  This  view  is  based  on  the  expression  in 
Peter,  "  saved  by  water,"  as  applied  to  the  eight  souls  who  were 
saved  by  water  in  the  ark.  To  be  purified,  with  them  was  equi- 
valent to  being  sanctified,  or  being  saved  ;  and  in  looking  at  bap- 
tism, their  minds  were  fixed  on  this  idea.  "  Now,"  said  they, 
"  as  in  baptism  water  saves,  so  in  the  flood  it  saved,  and  so  in  the 
Red  Sea  it  saved  ;  not  by  overwhelming  Noah  or  the  Israelites, 
but  by  dividing  them  from  the  enemies  of  God,  and  by  over- 
whelming and  immersing  those  enemies.  And  its  similarity  to 
baptism  lies  only  in  the  fact,  that  it  saves  or  purifies  the  people  of 
God.  Augustine  (Sermo  de  Cataclysmo,  Vol.  ix.  p.  320,  Paris, 
ed.  1586)  speaks  of  the  Israelites  delivered  out  of  Egypt,  as  has- 
tening to  the  Red  Sea,  "that  they  may  be  saved  by  water ;"  the 
Egyptians  follow,  the  sea  opens,  the  Israelites  pass  through,  the 
Egyptians  enter,  then,  "  Unum  elementum  aquarum,  auctore 
totius,  create  re  jubente,  judicavit  utrosque  ;  separavit  enim  pios 

4 


74  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  §  28. 

ab  impiis.  Illos  alluit,  istos  olruii ;  illos  7iiundamt,  istos  occidit,'" 
"  One  element,  water,  by  the  command  of  the  Creator,  judged 
both  ;  for  it  separated  the  rigliteous  from  the  wicked.  The  former 
it  washed,  the  latter  it  overwhelmed  j  the  former  it  purified,  the 
latter  it  destroyed."  He  then  speaks  of  Moses  as  a  type  of 
Christ,  his  rod  as  a  type  of  the  cross^  and  the  Red  Sea  as  a  type 
of  the  waters  of  baptism,  purpled  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  Now 
compare  with  this  the  anxious  efforts  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  to 
prove  that  in  some  way  the  Israelites  were  immersed.  Augustine 
says,  they  were  imslied  and  purified,  and  the  Egyptians  over- 
whelmed (and  of  course  immersed)  and  destroyed. 

It  is  quite  certain  that  no  man,  who  believed  and  was  anxious 
to  prove  that  immersion  was  the  sense  and  the  only  sense  of /SaTT- 
Titffjio^,  would  ever  have  used  this  language.  In  like  manner, 
comparing  the  salvation  of  Noah  and  his  family  to  the  salvation 
effected  by  baptism,  he  often  calls  the  flood  a  sacrament ;  and 
compares  its  effects  to  those  of  baptism.  He  compares  the  church 
to  the  ark  ;  and  one  out  of  the  church,  and  unbaptized,  to  one  out 
of  the  ark  ;  and  his  fate  to  the  fate  of  one  so  excluded.  Concern- 
ing the  one  who  perishes  out  of  the  ark,  he  says :  '^  suhmersus  est 
diluvio  non  dblutusJ^  Hence  he  regarded  those  in  the  ark,  who 
were  saved,  as  abluii,  i.e.  purified  or  saved,  and  those  out  of  it,  as 
suhmersi,  i.  e.  submersedy  or  immersed  and  destroyed.  All  this  he 
says  in  commenting  on  1  Pet.  iii.  20,  21.  See  Lib.  1,  Cap.  21, 
Vol.  vi.  p.  253.  Here  then  he  opposes  the  righteous  who  were 
purified,  but  not  immersed,  to  the  wicked  who  were  immersed,  but 
not  purified  ;  and  regards  one  as  saved  hy  purification,  and  the 
other  as  destroyed  by  immersion.  Would  any  modern  advocate  of 
immersion  have  ever  written  so  ?  For  the  true  sense  of  1  Pet.  iii. 
20,  21,  see  §  18. 

7.  Elias  is  spoken  of  by  Origen  as  baptizing  the  wood  in  the 
sense  of  purifying  it.  The  passage  is  this.  Origen  is  comment- 
ing on  John  i.  25  :  "  Why  baptizest  thou,  if  thou  be  not  the 
Christ,  nor  Elias,  nor  that  prophet  ?"  He  is  aiming  to  show  that 
they  had  no  reason  to  suppose  that  Elias  would  baptize  in  person 


§  28.  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  75 

when  he  should  come.  The  reason  is  this.  Ahhough  the  wood 
needed  purification,  yet  he  did  not  baptize,  purify,  it  himself,  but 
told  others  to  do  it.  His  words  are  :  OuSs  ra  s'kI  ^utfiatfryj^iov  |uXa, 
xa-ra  ro\Jg  tou  ^A-)(aaM  p^^ovou^,  ^'so'ju.sva  Xout^ou  i'va  SJcxau^/j  S'K'Kpavsvrog 
sv  'ff'u^/,  Tou  xu^i'ou,  ^aitridavTog'  S'n'ixsXsvSTai  ya^  toTs  U^sv(fi  touto 
*o/73(j'a».  "  Who  did  not  baptize — purify — the  wood  upon  the 
altar  in  the  days  of  Ahab,  although  it  needed  to  be  purified,  in 
order  that  it  might  be  burned  when  the  Lord  should  be  revealed 
in  fire  ;  for  he  commanded  the  priest  to  do  this."  In  this  case 
the  words  ^uXa  ^so'ixsvo.  Xout^ou,  beyond  all  dispute,  fix  the  sense, 
and  show  that  he  regarded  the  pouring  as  a  rite  of  purification, 
and  used  ^am'ri^oj  in  its  usual  religious  sense.  In  this  view,  the 
passage  remarkably  falls  in  with  and  confirms  the  reasoning  in 
§  9  ;  and  proves  that  Origen  understood  them  to  inquire  in  John 
i.  25  :  "  Why  purifiest  thou?^'  This  passage  also  is  in  perfect  ac- 
cordance with  those  already  quoted  from  his  writings. 

8.  It  was  a  natural  inquiry  of  old,  as  now  :  "  Why  was  Christ 
baptized  ?"  In  answering  this  question,  the  Fathers  do  not  say, 
as  does  Prof.  Chase,  he  was  immersed  "  as  a  fit  and  striking  em- 
blematical declaration  of  his  voluntarily  yielding  himself  up  to 
his  suflferings,  with  the  confidence  of  emerging  ;"  because  "  to 
represent  one  as  overwhelmed  in  the  water  was  a  well-known 
figure  to  indicate  deep  affliction."  See  Chase's  Sermon  on  the 
Design  of  Baptism,  p.  13.  They  do  not  try  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion :  "  Why  was  he  immersed .?"  but  solely  the  question  :  "  Why 
was  he  purified  ?"  And  in  those  passages  where  ^olt^t'i^i^  really 
means  overwhelm,*  they  retain,  as  we  have  seen,  the  sense  of  pu- 
rify. Various  answers  were  given.  In  general  they  all  denied 
that  he  was  purified  because  he  had  any  sin  ;  and  most  commonly 
they  added,  that  he  was  purified  in  order  to  give  to  the  water  of 
baptism  a  purifying  power.  See  §  21,  ^uvafxjv  sv^s»va»  xa^a^TixTjv. 
Augustine  says :  "  Aquae  quse  caetera  mundare  consueverant, 
Domino  nostro  lavante,  mundatee  sunt."     "  The  waters  which 

*  According  to  common  modern  usage,  I  now  agree  with  the  Fathers. 


76  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  §  28. 

were  accustomed  to  purify  other  things,  when  our  Lord  was 
washed  in  them,  were  purified."  He  also  says  it  was  to  give  an 
example  of  humility,  and  to  honor  the  rite  so  that  others  should 
not  despise  it.  Their  difficulties  were  caused  by  the  idea  purifp, 
as  applied  to  Christ ;  to  this  their  answers  correspond  ;  and  they 
do  not  correspond  with  the  views  of  those  who  believe  that  the 
word  means  immerse.  Can  we  doubt,  then,  what  was  the  general 
understanding  of  the  word  ?  Had  they  regarded  the  word  as  our 
Baptist  brethren  do,  would  they  not  have  given  their  solution  of 
the  question  1 

9.  In  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  do  not 
speak  of  it  as  an  inward  spiritual  immersion,  but  as  an  inward 
spiritual  purification.  Gregory  Nyss.  calls  baptism  ^iTiri  xa^ap- 
tfjj.  As  we  have  a  body  and  a  soul,  so  we  need  a  twofold  cleans- 
ing, 6C  '-u^oiiog  xoLi  -uivsuixalog  7a  /Sa^y)  xa&aipovloi;.  To  denote  the 
internal  baptism  here,  he  uses  xa&aipoo,  and  calls  the  external  and 
internal  together  6illri  xa&ap(jis,  a  twofold  cleansing.  Augustine 
says :  Baptizatur  a  Joanne  in  carne  ;  sed  ipse  Joannem  in  Spiritu 
lavat.  "  He  is  purified  by  John  in  the  flesh,  but  he  washes,  or 
purifies  John  in  the  Spirit."  So  he  says  :  "  Quod  enim  dicimus 
ipse  baptizat,  non  dicimus  ipse  tenet,  et  in  aqua  corpus  credentis 
tingit ;  sed  ipse  invisibiliter  mimdat  et  hoc  universam  prorsus  ec- 
clesiam."  "  When  we  say  that  Christ  baptizes,  we  do  not  say 
that  he  holds,  and  washes  in  water  the  body  of  the  believer,  but 
that  he  invisibly  purifies  him,  and  not  only  him,  but  the  whole 
church."  Lib.  iii.  c.  49.  In  the  Fathers,  such  passages  are  of 
constant  occurrence  ;  but  in  none  of  them  is  found  the  strange, 
incongruous,  and  modern  idea  of  an  internal  and  spiritual  immer- 
sion into  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire.  Comp.  §  10.  Origen  contrasts 
those  who  are  "loti  aqua,"  with  those  who  are  "  sancto  spiritu  loti." 

10.  In  speaking  of  the  Jiacpo^oj  fSa-rrrKf^oi,  Heb.  ix.  10,  they 
invariably  regard  them  as  purifications  of  persons,  not  as  immer- 
sions of  things.  See  §  14.  In  an  enumeration  of  the  various 
kinds  of  baptism,  often  ascribed  toAthanasius — an  unexceptionable 
witness  as  to  the  usus  loquendi  of  that  century — it  is  said,  as  an 
explanation    of   the  ^jaqjo^oi  (SwjTTKf^j.oi,  <Kag  ya^  axoL&a^Tog  sXovsro 


§  28.  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  77 

vSari.  "  Every  one  who  was  unclean  was  washed  in  water." 
Theophylact  says,  more  particularly,  that  a  man  was  washed  in 
water,  and  thus  purified,  scav  vsx^ov  ri-^aro,  xa\i  Xstt^ov,  xom  yoMo^^vris 
sysvSTQ  rig,  "  If  he  had  touched  a  dead  body,  or  a  leper,  or  had 
an  issue."  With  this  comp.  (Saitn^oiLZvog  dito  vsx^ov,  §  16.  Ma- 
carius  says  :  yjv  ita^''  dvroXg  ^d'rrTicf^.a  tfa^xa  a^ia^ov,  -Tfap'  tj/xm/ 
/Sa'TTTjo'iJLa  ayiov  'K'vsv^.a-rog  xul  ':fv^og.  "  There  was  with  them  a 
baptism  purifying  the  flesh,  but  with  us  is  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  of  fire."  In  this  he  manifestly  refers  to 
Hcb.  ix.  13:  ''the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean, 
sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh  ;  "  for  his  use  of 
ayici^oj  and  r'a^f  is  clearly  taken  from  Paul.  Of  course,  he  re- 
gards this  sprinkling  as  a  f3air-KfiJ.a.  Tertullian  says  :  Judseus 
quotidie  lavat,  quia  quotidie  inquinatur  :  quod  ne  in  nobis  facti- 
taretur,  propterea  de  uno  Ifivacro  definitum  est.  "  The  Jew 
washes  daily,  because  he  is  daily  defiled  :  that  we  might  not 
need  to  do  this,  he  definitely  established  one  washing." 

11.  In  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  fire,  the  fathei's  regard  it, 
not  as  an  immersion,  but  as  a  purification  or  purgation ;  and 
from  this  use  the  idea  of  a  future  purgatory  came.  A  few  re- 
garded the  fire  spoken  of  in  the  words,  "  he  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire,"  as  referring  to  punishment, 
as  some  do  even  now.  But  others  of  them  regarded  it  as  the  puri- 
fying fire  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Others  believed  in  a  literal  fire  of 
purification  after  death,  particularly  Origen.  In  Hom.  24,  on 
Luke  iii.  16,  he  speaks  of  Jesus  as  purifying  in  a  river  of  fire, 
each  one  who,  after  death,  and  before  entering  heaven,  needs  to 
be  purged,  "qui  purgatione  indiget."  Hom.  2,  on  Jer.,  he  says  : 
"  Itaque  et  Jesus  baptizat  spiritu  sancto  et  igne,  non  quia  eundem 
in  spiritu  sancto  atque  igne  baptizet :  scd  quia  sanctus  baptizetur 
spiritu  sancto,  et  is  qui  post  fidem  et  magisterium  Dei  rursus  ad 
scelera  conversus  est,  cruciatu  purgeiur  incendii.  Beatus  qui 
lavacrum  accepit  spiritus  sancti,  et  ignis  hivacro  non  indiget. 
Miserabilis  autem,  et  omni  fletu  dignus,  qui,  post  lavacrum 
spiritus,  haptizandus  est  igni."  "  Therefore  Jesus  also  baptizes 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire.     Not  because  he  baptizes  the 


78  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  §  28. 

same  person  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire,  but  because  he 
who  is  holy,  is  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  he  who  turns 
to  sin  after  professing  his  faith  and  submitting  to  God,  is  purified 
by  the  torments  of  fire.  Blessed  is  he  who  has  received  the 
purification  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  does  not  need  the  purification 
of  fire.  Miserable  is  he,  and  deserving  of  tears,  who,  after  the  puri- 
fication of  the  Spirit,  needs  to  be  purified  (baptizandus)  with  fire." 

In  the  Greek  text  of  Origen,  the  word  /3a'7rTj(^w  is  used  where 
the  Latin  translator  uses  lavacrum.  Thus,  fxajcapjoj  o  ^aim^oii.svog 
iv  dyKfj  irvsv^ari.     Beatus  qui  lavacrum  accepit  spiritus  sancti. 

If  Jerome  or  Rufinus  was  the  translator,  as  I  suppose,  it  is  a 
direct  testimony  that  (SaitTi^u)  did  not  mean  to  immerse,  and  that, 
by  one  perfectly  qualified  to  judge.  So  /3a'7r-riV|xaTo^  tov  ct'Tfo 
ifv^os  corresponds  to  "  ignis  lavacro."  A  little  after  he  speaks 
of  "  peccator  qui  ignis  indiget  hapiisino,  qui  combustione  pur- 
gatur.^'  "The  sinner  who  needs  the  baptism  of  fire,  who  is 
purged  by  burning."  In  his  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Rom. 
Lib.  8,  he  says :  "  Ut  ignis  gehennse  in  cruciatibus  purget 
quern  nee  apostolica  doctrina,  nee  evangelicus  sermo  purgavit, 
secundum  illud  quod  est  scriptum,  purijicaho  te  igni  ad  purifca- 
tionem.'^  "  That  the  fire  of  Gehenna  may  purify  him  by  tor- 
ments, whom  neither  the  apostolical  doctrine  nor  the  evangelical 
truth  purified,  according  to  that  which  is  written,  I  will  purify 
thee  with  fire,  in  order  to  make  thee  pure."  Here  baptizo,  purgo, 
purifico,  and  lavo  (involved  in  lavacro),  are  all  used  as  synony- 
mous terms  in  describing  the  baptism  of  fire.  If  Gieseler  is  cor- 
rect (Vol.  i.  ^119,  note  14),  this  purgation  of  Origen  is  not  to 
be  confounded  with  the  Roman  Catholic  purgatory,  first  suggest- 
ed, as  he  says,  by  Augustine.  Neither  the  opinion  of  Origen 
nor  of  Augustine  is  correct ;  yet  they  show  as  clearly  as  if  true, 
that  by  the  baptism  of  fire,  a  jnirgation  hy  fire,  and  not  an  wimersion, 
was  meant.  Clearly  they  had  in  mind  the  words  of  Malachi :  "  he 
is  like  a  refiner's  fire,"  and,  "  he  shall  purify  and  purge.'^  These 
words  gave  rise  to  the  expression  in  the  gospel  :  "  He  shall  purify 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost   and  with  fire."      Taking  the  word 


§  28.  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  79 

^(tifri^CA)  in  this  sense,  we  can  clearly  see  how  the  various  and 
erroneous  forms  of  the  doctrine  of  imrgatory  grew  out  of  it. 
Compare  §§9,   10. 

12.  In  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  tears,  the  Fathers  regard  it 
as  a  purification  by  tears,  and  not  as  an  immersion  in  tears.  The 
very  nature  of  the  case  shows  that  it  must  have  been  so,  and  the 
langjuage  of  the  Fathers  proves  that  t!ie  purifying  power  of  tears 
did  not  depend  on  .having  a  quantity  sufficient  for  an  immersion. 
Says  Nilus,  Aout>5^  ayaMg  Irjs  NJ^up^yjg-,  Ir^g  ':^^(jB\j-)(Y,g  7o  ^ax^uov. 
*'  The  tear  of  prayer" — not  a  flood  or  river,  or  ocean  of  tears — 
"  the  tear  of  prayer  is  a  good  wasb-basin  of  the  soul."  For  this 
use  of  AouT>5^,  see  §  16,  and  the  idea  there  given  of  washing  the 
hands  of  the  soul.  So  Gregory  Nyss.  calls  tears  Xout^ov  xaroixi- 
^lov  xoLi  x^ovovs  Idiovg  di'  wv  s(fV  lag  x-f{K\5ag  Ir^g  -^^xj-^fig  a-coovjsj^atf^ai, 
*'  a  domestic  washing  place  and  fountains  of  your  own,  by 
means  of  which  you  can  wash  off  the  pollution  of  your  soul." 
^  At^'ov 4^700,  as  no  one  can  den}'',  never  denotes  immersion,  but 
commonly,  the  washing  of  hands  and  feet.  From  the  nature  of 
the  case  then,  as  well  as  from  the  language  of  the  Fathers,  we  are 
certain  that  they  regarded  the  baptism  of  tears,  not  as  an  immer- 
sion,  but  as  a  purification. 

13.  The  Fathers  applied  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  com- 
manding washing,  or  predicting  purification,  to  the  rite  of  baptism 
in  such  a  way,  as  evinces  a  belief  that  iSaitri^cj)  means  to  purify. 

In  Is.  i.  16,  is  a  command  to  wash  and  make  clean — Heb. 
^S^n  nirri'i,  Sept.  Ao^tfaCds,  xa&apol  yiv£(f&s — Vulg.  lavamini,  mundi 
estote.  Justin  Martyr  and  Hippolytus  regard  this  as  an  antici- 
pation, or  prophetic  injunction  of  baptism.  Hippolytus  says  : 
^'  Prophcta  Isaias  Baptismi  \\m  imrgatii^am  prsedixit,  cum  ait,  lava- 
mini,  mundi  estote."*  Cyprian,  Jerome,  and  others  apply  to  bap- 
tism the  prediction :  "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
ye  shall  be  clean."     Now,  if  they  regarded  ^anfTi^(^  as  a  syno- 

*  For  Justin'-s  view  see  §  00.  See,  also,  Basil  on  Is.  iv.  4,  as  another 
fact,  §  55. 


80  COII^CIDENT   FACTS-  §  28, 

nyme  ofxa^api'^w,  all  this  is  plain  and  natural;  for  in  one  of 
these  cases  imrificaiion  is  cGmmanded,  in  the  other  it  is  predicted^ 
but  in  neither  is  immersion  mentioned.  The  only  external  act 
alluded  to  is  sprinkling.  I  desire  that  here  may  be  noted  the 
useofyni,  in  Isa.  i.  16.  By  this  word  all  the  commands  for 
personal  ablution  in  the  Mosaic  ritual  are  given,  and  to  it,  I  re- 
marked, §  14,  (Swirrl^u)  would  naturally  become  a  synony^ne. 
Here  is  proof  that  it  did  so  become.  And  this  word  always 
denotes  washing,  without  respect  to  mode,  and  never  imn>ersion. 
14.  From  the  time  of  the  clinic  baptism  of  Novatian,  down  to 
the  Reformation,  there  were  cases  of  baptism  by  afiusion  or 
sprinkling,  defended  on  grounds  similar  to  those  stated  by  Cyprian 
(No.  5),  and  totally  inconsistent  witli  the  idea  that  they  felt  bound 
by  the  word  /DaTrri^w  to  regard  nothing  as  a  baptism  that  was  not 
an  immersion.  All  this  is  plain,  and  easily  accounted  for,  if  they 
regarded  ^aiind^i^g  merely  as  a  purification,  to  be  performed  in 
common  cases,  by  immersion,  and  in  extraordinary  cases,  by  af- 
fusion or  sprinkling.  It  shows  that  tlieir  attachment  to  the  mode 
did  not  depend  on  (SaiiTi^u,  but  on  a  regard  to  general  practice, 
and  its  supposed  significance.  Constantino  the  Great  was. bap- 
tized by  sprinkling  on  his  bed.  In  499,  Clodovius,  king  of  the 
Franks,  was  baptized  by  affusion.  Gennadius,  of  Marseilles, 
A.  D.  490,  says,  that  the  baptized  person  is  either  sprinkled  or 
immersed — vel  aspergitur,  vel  intingitur.  For  other  clear  and 
striking  cases,  see  Eond,  pp.  42 — 50  ;  where  he  clearly  proves, 
that  immersion  was  never  considered  as  essential  to  baptism  till 
after  the  Reformation.  The  bearing  of  all  these  facts  on  the 
meaning  of  the  word  is  irresistible.  Had  it  been  regarded  as  de- 
manding immersion,  when  there  was  such  a  universal  attach- 
ment to  that  mode,  a  deviation  would  have  been  resisted  on  phi- 
lological grounds  ;  but,  though  frequent  and  extensive  deviations 
took  place,  they -were  never  so  resisted.  The  conclusion  is 
inevitable — they  could  not  be  so  resisted ;  it  was  universally 
known  that  /Sa-Trrj^w,  as  a  religious  term,  mmnt  to  purify,  not  to 
immerse. 


§  28.  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  81 

1.5.  To  conclude,  the  idea  of  purification  is,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  better  adapted  to  be  the  name  of  the  rite,  than  immersion. 
It  has  a  fitness  and  verisimilitude  in  all  its  extensive  variety  of 
usage,  which  cause  the  mind  to  feel  the  self-evidencing  power  of 
truth,  as  producing  harmony  and  agreement  in  the  most  minute, 
as  well  as  in  the  most  important  relations  of  the  various  parts  of 
this  subject  to  each  other.  This  is  owing  to  three  facts  :  1.  The 
idea  of  purification  is  the  fundamental  idea  in  the  whole  subject. 
2.  It  is  an  idea  complete  and  definite  in  itself  in  every  sense,  and 
needs  no  adjunct  to  make  it  more  so.  3.  It  is  the  soul  and  cen- 
tre of  a  whole  circle  of  delightful  ideas  and  words.  It  throws 
out  before  the  mind  a  flood  of  rich  and  glorious  thoughts,  and  is 
adapted  to  operate  on  the  feelings  like  a  perfect  charm.  To  a 
sinner,  desiring  salvation,  what  two  ideas  so  delightful  as  forgive- 
ness and  purity  ?  Both  are  condensed  into  this  one  word.  It 
involves  in  itself  a  deliverance  from  the  guilt  of  sin,  and  from  its 
pollution.  It  is  a  purification  from  sin  in  every  sense.  See  §  12. 
It  is  purification  by  the  atonement,  and  purification  by  the  truth, 
— by  water  and  by  blood.  And  around  these  ideas  cluster 
others  likewise,  of  holiness,  salvation,  eternal  joy,  eternal  life. 
No  word  can  produce  such  delight  on  the  heart,  and  send  such  a 
flood  of  light  into  all  the  relations  of  divine  truth  ;  for  purification, 
in  the  broad  Scripture  sense,  is  the  joy  and  salvation  of  man,  and 
the  crowning  glory  of  God.  Of  immersion  none  of  these  things 
are  true.  1.  Immersion  is  not  a  fundamental  idea  in  any  sub- 
ject or  system.  2.  By  itself,  it  does  not  convey  any  one  fixed 
idea,  but  depends  upon  its  adjuncts,  and  varies  with  them.  Im- 
mersion ?  In  M"hat  ?  Clean  water,  or  filthy  ;  in  a  dyeing  fluid,  or 
in  wine  ?  Until  these  questions  are  answered,  the  word  is  of  no 
use.  And  with  the  spiritual  sense  the  case  is  still  worse  ;  for 
common  usage  limits  it  in  English,  Latin,  Greek,  and  so  far  as  I 
know,  in  all  languages,  by  adjuncts  of  a  kind  denoting  calamity 
or  degradation,  and  never  purity.  It  has  intimate  and  firmly  es- 
tablished associations  with  such  words  as  luxury,  ease,  indolence, 
sloth,  cares,  anxieties,  troubles,  distresses,  sins,  pollution.     We 

41= 


82  COINCIDENT    FACTS.  §   28. 

familiarly  speak  of  immersion  in  all  these,  but  with  their  opposites 
it  refuses  alliance.  We  never  speak  of  a  person  as  immersed  in 
temperance,  fortitude,  industry,  diligence,  tranquillity,  prosperity, 
holiness,  purity,  etc.  Sinking  and  downward  motion  are  natu- 
rally allied  with  ideas  which,  in  a  moral  sense,  are  depressed, 
and  not  with  such  as  are  morally  elevated.  Very  few  exceptions 
to  this  general  law  exist,  and  these  do  not  destroy  its  power. 
Now,  for  what  reason  should  the  God  of  order,"  purity,  harmony, 
and  taste,  select  an  idea  so  alien  from  his  own  beloved  rite,  for  its 
name,  and  reject  one  in  every  respect  so  desirable  and  so  fit  ? 
Who  does  not  feel  that  the  name  of  so  delightful  an  idea  as  puri- 
fication must  be  the  name  of  the  rite  ?  And  who  does  not  rejoice 
that  there  is  proof  so  unanswerable,  that  it  is  ? 

The  philological  argument  is  now  closed.  Whatever  may  be 
the  interpretation  of  Romans  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  the  ques- 
tion of  philology  must  remain  untouched.  All  that  they  can 
prove,  at  most,  is  the  fact,  that  those  to  whom  Paul  wrote  were 
immersed,  and  that  he  deemed  immersion  a  significant  act.  Nei- 
ther of  these  do  they  prove,  in  my  opinion  ;  for  which  I  propose 
soon  to  give  my  reasons.  But  if  they  did,  it  is  impossible,  as  we 
have  shown,  to  settle  the  question  of  philology  by  early  practice. 
Even  if  they  did  immerse,  it  was  only  a  mode  of  purification  ; 
and  it  was  baptism,  not  because  it  was  immersion,  but  because  it 
was  purification. 


CHAPTER    II. 

THE  INTERPRETATION  OF  ROM.  VI.  3,  4,  AND  COL.  II.    12. 

§  29.     Importance  of  a  correct  Interpretation  of  Rom,  vi.  3,  4, 
and  CoL  ii,   12, 

The  conclusion  to  which  we  have  arrived  by  our  previous  in- 
quiries is  this :  Purification  is  enjoined  by  a  specific  command, 
but  no  particular  mode  of  purification  is  enjoined.  Of  course, 
any  individual  may  be  lawfully  purified  in  the  way  that  he  pre- 
fers. No  result  can  be  more  desirable  than  this,  for  none  tends 
more  directly  to  harmonize  the  church.  It  combines  the  two 
fundamental  requisites  for  union,  which  are,  1,  to  take  from  no 
church  anything  which  it  desires,  as  to  its  own  mode  of  purifica- 
tion ;  and  2,  to  authorize  each  church  to  regard  the  purification 
of  others,  though  differing  from  its  own,  as  valid.  Who,  that 
loves  the  harmony  of  the  church,  who,  that  regards  the  feelings 
and  wishes  of  Christ,  would  not  rejoice  at  an  issue  so  auspicious  ? 
What  can  be  more  desirable  than  a  union  without  sacrifice  of 
principle,  or  loss  of  any  valued  practice  ?  But  this  result  secures 
all  this  ;  nay  more,  it  would  give  to  our  Baptist  brethren,  not  only 
the  full  enjoyment  of  all  they  desire,  without  diminution  or  loss, 
but  add  to  it  the  sweet  persuasion,  that,  on  this  point,  all  their 
Christian  brethren  are  also  right,  and  can,  in  like  manner,  enjoy 
the  mode  which  they  prefer.  Thus  all  painful  barriers  to  com- 
munion will  at  once  be  taken  away,  the  middle  wall  of  partition 
will  fall,  and  all,  in  Christian  love,  will  be  united  as  one  new 
man. 

In  proportion  then  to  the  desirableness  of  this  event,  is  the  im- 
portance of  a  radical  investigation  and  correct  interpretation  of 


84  ROM.  VI.  3,  4 :    col.  ii.   12.  §  29. 

Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12  ;  for,  next  to  the  word  Ba-TTTj^w, 
these  have  been,  and  still  are,  the  most  serious  obstacles  to  such  a 
result.  As  I  have  before  stated,  our  Baptist  brethren  regard 
these  passages  as  an  inspired  exposition  of  the  mode  of  baptism 
— as  proving,  irresistibly,  that  the  rite  is  designed,  not  merely  to 
represent  purification  from  sin,  but  purification  in  a  way  signifi- 
cant of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and  of  the 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  the  believer  with  him  ;  and  al- 
though this  signification  of  the  rite  was  not  seen  by  men,  when  it 
was  first  established,  yet  it  was  fully  before  the  mind  of  God,  and 
was  finally  and  fully  disclosed  by  the  Apostle  Paul.  In  this  they 
are  no  doubt  perfectly  sincere,  as  they  are  also  in  the  conviction 
that  no  mode  of  purification,  devoid  of  this  striking  significance, 
is  in  accordance  with  the  revealed  will  of  God.  Nor  are  they 
without  authority  for  interpreting  these  texts  as  referring  to  the 
mode  of  the  external  rite.  Indeed,  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers, 
whatever  they  may  be  worth,  so  far  as  I  have  examined,  are  en- 
tirely with  them.  This  explanation  seems  to  have  been  adopted 
at  a  very  early  period.  But  it  was  most  fully  developed  by 
Chrysostom  ;  and  undoubtedly  his  authority  and  eloquence,  more 
than  those  of  any  other  man,  tended  to  give  it  currency  in  the 
East,  whilst  the  influence  of  Augustine  was  equally  decisive  in 
the  West.  Besides,  it  is  strongly  sustained  by  the  opinions  of 
many  modern  critics.  Of  these,  it  is  enough  to  mention  Luther, 
Jaspis,  Knapp,  RosenmuUer,  Doddridge,  and  Barnes — none  of 
them  Baptists  by  profession. 

Of  course  we  need  not  wonder  that  our  Baptist  brethren  feel 
strong,  and  express  themselves  with  confidence  and  even  exultation, 
in  speaking  of  these  passages.  Says  Dr.  Carson  (p.  144),  "  I  value 
the  evidence  of  these  passages  so  highly,  that  I  look  on  them  as 
perfectly  decisive.  They  contain  God's  own  explanation  of  his 
own  ordinance.  And  in  this,  I  call  upon  my  unlearned  brethren 
to  admire  the  divine  M^isdom.  They  do  not  understand  the  origi- 
nal,  and  the  adoption  of  the  words  baptize  and  baptism  can  teach 
them  nothing.     Translators,  by  adopting  the  Greek  word,  have 


§  30.  POINTS    AT    ISSUE PRINCIPLES    OF    REASONING.  85 

contrived  to  hide  the  meaning  from  the  unlearned.  But  the  evi- 
dence of  the  passages  in  question  cannot  be  hid,  and  it  is  obvious 
to  the  most  unlearned.  The  Spirit  of  God  has  enabled  them  to 
judge  for  themselves  in  this  matter.  Whilst  the  learned  are 
fighting  about  Bair'Ti^co,  and  certain  Greek  prepositions,  let  the  un- 
learned turn  to  Rom.  vi.  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  etc."  This  may  be 
taken  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  strength  of  feeling  that  pervades 
the  whole  body  ;  and  if  so,  it  is  plain  that  all  hopes  of  union  are 
fallacious,  until  the  true  interpretation  of  these  passages  is  ascer- 
tained. Most  cordially,  therefore,  do  I  unite  with  Dr.  Carson  in 
inviting,  not  the  unlearned  only,  but  all — learned  and  unlearned 
— to  turn  to  Rom.  vi.   3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.   12. 

§  30.     Points  at  Issue — Principles  of  Reasoning. 

Let  us  first  present  in  full  these  remarkable  and  important  pas- 
sages of  the  word  of  God,  and  ihen  endeavor  to  ascertain  upon 
what  points  the  interpretation  of  them  turjis.  They  are  as  fol- 
low :  ""H  d/vosrrs,  o'-n  oVoj  s/Sa-TrTicr^rjixsv  z]g  Xpitfrov  'Ir](J'ouv  s]g  tov 
^ava-rov  duToO'  sl^airrld&rnj.sv  ;  2uv£-ra,(py]|xsv  ouv  durw  (5'ia.  tou  (^aitr'id- 
juoaroj  Big  rov  ^avarov  •  I'va  wrfTTS^  riyz^&'f\  X^kj'-toj  sjc  vsx^wv  dio,  Tiqg 
6o^'f]g  Tov  itar^og  oCrw  xat  rj}J^sTg  sv  '/.aivor-fin  Z^^r^g  •^sPiifOLrr^di^i^LSv. 
Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  IxjvracpivTZg  ocut^  sv  tw  /3a'7rTjV|xa-»*  sv  w  xoa 
tfuvrj^sV^rjrs  5w.  Trig  irldrst^g  Trig  svs^ysiag  tov  Gsov  tov  sys'iPavrog  clurov 
ix  vtx^wv.     Col.  ii.    12. 

Upon  these  passages  two  distinct  questions  may  be  raised. 

I.  Is  the  BAPTISM  of  the  believer  here  spoken  of  external? 

II.  Are  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  the  believer  here 
spoken  of  external? 

I  here  assume  the  following  positions  or  principles,  the  first  of 
which  has  been  already  proved,  and  the  second  of  which  is  so  ob- 
viously true  as  to  need  no  proof. 

1.  The  philological  question,  as  to  the  import  of  /5a'53'7i^w, 
neither  dejjcnds  upon  the  interpretation  of  this  passage,  nor  is  af- 
fected by  it.  Each  stands  upon  its  own  ground,  and  must  be  de- 
cided by  its  own  evidence.     And  if  it  were  proved  that  external 


86  POSITION    TO    BE    PROVED SOURCES    OF    EVIDENCE.        §  31. 

baptism,  burial,  and  resurrection  are  here  referred  to,  it  would 
only  prove,  that,  under  a  command  to  purify,  they  did  in  fact  puri- 
fy by  immersion.  And  we  must  still  translate  the  passage:  "We 
have  been  buried  with  him  by  purification  into  his  death" — not  by 
"  immersion'"  into  his  death.  For  we  have  already  shown  that,  as 
a  religious  term,  /Sa'zu'lj^w  does  not  mean  to  immerse,  but  solely  to 
purify.  In  other  words,  we  could  prove  immersion,  &c.,  only  by 
the  word  bury,  and  not  at  all  by  the  word  baptize. 

2.  As  the  baptism  is,  so  is  the  burial.  That  is,  if  the  baptism 
is  external,  so  is  the  burial ;  and  if  internal,  so  is  the  burial. 
We  are  buried  by  the  baptism  spoken  of, — Suvsracpyj^sv  aurw  ^lo, 
Tou  ^a'7r'TiV(xaro^,  etc.  Rom.  vi.  4.  And  an  external  baptism  can- 
not produce  an  internal  burial,  nor  can  an  internal  baptism  pro- 
duce an  external  burial. 

§  31.    Position  to  be  proved — Sources  of  Evidence. 

We  now  proceed  to  consider  the  two  questions  above  stated. 
In  answering  them,  three  positions  have  been  taken  : 

1.  The  baptism  into  Christ  is  external,  and  of  course  the  burial 
and  resurrection. 

2.  The  baptism  is  external,  but  the  burial  and  resurrection  are 
internal. 

3.  The  baptism,  burial,  resurrection,  etc.,  are  all  internal,  and 
the  passage  does  not  refer  to  the  external  rite  at  all,  nor  derive 
any  of  its  language  from  it ;  but  the  language  would  have  been 
just  as  it  is,  if  the  rite  had  been  administered  by  sprinkling  alone, 
or  even  if  there  had  been  no  external  rite. 

The  third  is  the  position  which  I  intend  to  maintain  ;  and  it  is 
obviously  the  direct  antagonist  of  the  first, — the  usual  position  of 
the  Baptists,  and  also  of  the  Fathers  and  others.  The  second  is 
an  intermediate  position,  advocated  by  Wardlaw,  Prof.  Stuart, 
and  others,  but,  as  I  have  indicated  above,  inconsistent  with  itself; 
because,  if  the  baptism  is  external,  so  must  be  the  burial  and  the 
resurrection.  It  is  on  this  ground  that  Prof.  Ripley  reasons,  and 
I  think  conclusively,   against   Prof.   Stuart.      "  This   opinion " 


§  32.  LOGICAL    EXIGENCIES    OF    ROM.    VI.    3,  4.  87 

(that  the  burial  is  internal),  he  says,  "  seems  effectually  opposed 
by  the  circumstance  that  the  burying  is  performed  by  haptism,  an 
external  rite.''  p.  86.  And  all,  who  admit  that  the  external  rite 
is  here  spoken  of,  must,  it  seems  to  me,  be  inevitably  driven  to 
Prof.  Ripley's  ground.  But,  believing  as  I  do,  that  the  external 
rite  is  not  meant,  and  that  the  external  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage is  not  only  false,  but  injurious  to  the  cause  of  truth  and  holi- 
ness, I  shall  proceed  to  state  the  evidence  which  seems  to  me  to 
overthrow  the  first  position,  and  to  establish  the  last.  My  leading 
arguments  may  be  arranged  under  the  four  following  heads  : 

1.  Evidence  from  the  logical  exigencies  of  the  passages,  i.  e. 
from  the  course  of  the  argument. 

2.  Evidence  from  the  usus  loquendi,  as  to  spiritual  death,  burial, 
resurrection,  &c. 

3.  Evidence  from  the  congruity  of  the  interpretation,  with  the 
general  system  of  truth. 

4.  Evidence  from  the  moral  tendencies  and  effects  of  each  in- 
terpretation. 

§  32.     Argument  from  the  Logical  Exigencies  of  Rom.  vi.  3,  4. 

Let  us  then  consider,  1,  the  course  of  the  argument,  and  2,  the 
logical  exigencies  of  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  We  shall  consider  Col.  ii. 
12  by  itself.     The  argument  involves  three  points  : 

1.  An  objection  stated  in  the  form  of  a  question,  v.  1  :  "  What 
then  ?  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ?" 
Does  not  the  doctrine  of  the  free  forgiveness  of  the  greatest  sins, 
by  the  abounding  grace  of  God  through  Christ,  lead  to  this  result  ? 
Or,  to  put  it  in  the  form  of  a  positive  objection,  the  doctrine  of 
the  forgiveness  of  sins  by  free  grace,  tends  to  relax  the  power  of 
motives  to  holiness,  and  to  encourage  men  to  live  in  sin. 

2.  A  reply,  v.  2  :  "  God  forbid.  How  shall  we,  who  are  dead 
to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  ?"  Here  Paul  speaks  in  the  name 
of  all  who  are  really  forgiven,  and  virtually  asserts,  that  all,  who 
are  in  fact  forgiven,  are  of  course  dead  to  sin,  and  cannot  live 
any   longer  therein.      Implying,   of  necessity,   that  the  system 


88  LOGICAL    EXIGENCIES    OF    ROM.    VI.    3,  4.  §  32. 

itself  produces  this  effect  on  all  who  experience  its  true  and  ge- 
nuine influence,  and  that  this  is  necessary  and  universal.  In 
brief,  the  objection  is :  Does  not  the  system  encourage  men  to 
sin  ?  The  answer  is  :  No,  it  makes  them  dead  to  sin,  so  that 
they  cannot  live  any  longer  in  it. 

3.  A  proof  that  the  fact  alleged  is  true — i.  e.  that  the  system 
does  tend  to  holiness,  with  immense  power,  and  not  to  sin.  vs. 
3-11. 

The  question  now  at  once  arises.  What  is  good  and  logical 
proof  of  such  a  point,  i.  e.  of  the  true  and  natural  operation  of  a 
moral  system  on  the  human  mind  ?  In  answering  this,  we  shall 
perceive  at  once  the  logical  exigencies  of  the  passage. 

Can  such  proof  then  be  found  in  external  rites,  solemn  pro- 
mises, and  significant  symbols  ?  Or  must  we  look  for  it  in  a 
clear  statement  of  the  internal,  natural,  and  inevitable  operation  of 
the  system,  as  a  system,  on  the  mind  ?  As  to  the  first,  I  need 
only  ask,  what  system,  be  it  good  or  bad,  is  destitute  of  significant 
rites  and  symbols,  and  of  solemn  confessions  and  promises?  Pa- 
pists and  Protestants,  Arminians,  Calvinists,  Unitarians,  Camp- 
bellites,  Mormonites — all  have  them  ;  even  the  rite  of  immersion 
is  common  to  some  of  the  worst  with  some  of  the  best.  But  in 
what  case  have  these  things  given  to  any  system  a  regenerating 
or  sanctifying  power  sufficient  to  uproot  and  destroy  the  desperate 
depravity  of  the  human  heart  ?  Is  it  not  a  well  known  fact,  that 
the  radical  effects  of  all  systems  depend,  not  on  external  rites  and 
solemn  promises,  but  on  principles  ?  These  are  the  internal  and 
germinating  power  of  every  system,  and  just  so  far  as  these  are 
adapted  to  act  on  the  human  mind,  so  is  the  system.  And  as  a 
general  fact,  those  who  depend  most  on  promises,  professions,  and 
external  rites,  as  a  means  of  subduing  sin,  have  the  least  success. 

In  order,  then,  to  make  out  a  sound  logical  argument,  it  is 
necessary  that  Paul  should  exhibit  the  internal  operation  on  the 
mind,  of  the  doctrine  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins  by  faith,  and  prove 
that  it  does  in  fact  cause  all  who  come  under  its  influence,  to  be 
dead  to  sin.     This,  according  to  the  internal  mode  of  interpretation. 


§  32.  LOGICAL    EXIGENCIES    OF    ROM.    VI.    3,  4.  89 

he  does  ;  but,  according  to  the  external  mode,  he  does  not.     The 
one  states  the  actual  and  inward  effects  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
through  faith.     The  other  merely  refers  us  to  the  influence  of  an 
external  rite.     That  this  is  so  let  us  now  proceed  to  establish. 
The  fundamental  points  in  the  interpretation  are  four : 

1.  'EQaitTlcftiyiij.sv  is  to  be  interpreted,  we  have  been  imrifxd  or 
purged,  in  the  legal  or  sacrificial  sense,  to  denote  the  actual  puri- 
fication or  purgation  of  the  conscience  from  guilt  by  the  Spirit. 
This  is  the  spiritual  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  designed 
influence  of  the  system  on  the  mind  of  a  convicted  sinner.  Of 
this  state  of  mind  we  have  the  following  beautiful  description 
from  the  pen  of  Cowper  : 

Sweet  was  the  time  wlien  first  I  felt 
The  Saviour's  pardoning  blood. 
Applied  to  cleanse  my  soul  from  guilt. 
And  bring  me  home  to  God. 

Thus,  by  this  mode  of  translation,  we  pass  at  once,  not  to  an 
external  rite,  but  to  the  actual  influence  of  the  system  on  the 
mind. 

2.  'E§a'7rr((j'c)7]fxcv  ?.ig  XpitTTov,  is  to  be  interpreted  as  indicating 
no  external  rite,  but  an  actual  union  with  Christ,  by  this  spiritual 
purgation,  or  sense  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  This  consciousness 
of  forgiving  love  awakens  corresponding  love,  and  produces  an 
entire  union  to  Christ,  and  devotedness  to  him.  "  Whom  not 
having  seen,  ye  love  ;  and  in  whom,  though  now  ye  see  him  not, 
yet  believing,  ye  rejoice  with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory." 
This  is  a  spiritual  baptism  into  Christ,  involving  a  real  and  vital 
union  to  him. 

3.  As  the  baptism  into  Christ  is  thus  internal  and  spiritual,  so 
are  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  spoken  of  as  produced  by 
it  ;  and  these  are  to  be  regarded  as  the  genuine  and  universal 
eflects  of  the  system  of  forgiveness  by  faith  in  Christ. 

4.  These  changes  involve  a  crucifixion  to  sin,  a  death  to  it,  a 
burial  as  it  regards  the  old   man,  and  a  resurrection  as  it  regards 


90  LOGICAL    EXIGENCIES    OF    ROM.    VI.    3,  4.  §  32. 

the  new,  analogous  to  the  natural  crucifixion,  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ.  Thus  the  propositions  of  Paul  may  be 
briefly  reduced  to  this  :  By  forgiveness  of  sins  we  are  truly  and 
vitally  united  to  Christ,  and  the  inevitable  effect  of  this  union  is  to 
exterminate,  radically  and  entirely,  our  old  sinful  character,  and 
to  produce  a  new  one,  pure  and  holy  like  his  own.  That  these 
propositions,  if  true,  do  make  a  logical  argument,  none  can  deny. 
Thus, 

Objection.  The  system  of  forgiveness  of  sins  through  faith  in 
Christ  tends  to  embolden  men  in  sin. 

Reply.  It  does  not ;  for  all  who  are  truly  forgiven  are  dead  to 
sin,  and  cannot  live  in  it  any  longer.  This  is  the  natural  and 
necessary  consequence  of  the  system. 

Proof.  All  who  are  forgiven  are  united  by  it  to  Christ,  and  it 
is  the  inevitable  consequence  of  this  union  to  cause  death  unto 
sin,  and  life  unto  God. 

Now  if  the  facts  alleged  are  not  only  true,  but  obvious  and  well 
known,  then  the  argument  is  not  only  logical,  but  one  of  the  high- 
est power.  But  need  I  attempt  to  show  that  they  are  so  ?  Look 
first  at  a  spiritual  baptism.  See  the  convinced  sinner,  agonized 
by  the  scorpion  stings  of  a  guilty  conscience,  and  fears  of  coming 
wrath,  and  earnestly  inquiring.  What  shall  T  do  ?  Next  look  at 
him  baptized  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  his  conscience  purged  from  guilt 
by  the  blood  of  Christ,  his  sins  forgiven,  his  soul  redeemed — an 
enemy,  an  alien,  a  rebel  no  more,  but  a  child  of  God,  a  son,  an 
heir.  In  the  midst  of  all  his  joy,  what  one  thought  above  all 
others  will  of  necessity  fill  and  overwhelm  his  mind  ?  It  is  this : 
To  the  death  of  Christ  I  owe  it  all ; — Oh  what  had  eternity  been  to 
me,  had  it  not  been  for  the  death  of  Christ  f  And  now  what  must 
be — what  will  be,  the  inevitable  course  of  his  soul  ?  Can  he  en- 
dure the  thought  of  living  in  sin  any  longer  ?  Speak,  oh  speak, 
ye  who  have  ever  felt  the  overwhelming,  the  infinite,  the  irresisti- 
ble power  of  a  Saviour's  love.  Was  not  its  natural,  its  necessary 
tendency  to  produce  an  entire  and  vital  union  of  the  soul  to 
Christ,  and  a  ceaseless  and  intense  desire  to  be  formed  in  his  per- 


§  32.  LOGICAL    EXIGENCIES    OF    ROM.    VI.    3,  4.  91 

feet  image,  and  under  the  power  of  his  love  to  make  efforts  to 
exterminate  every  sin,  of  which  not  even  the  remotest  idea  had 
been  formed  before  ?  Such  an  appeal  to  every  possible  principle 
of  gratitude,  honor,  generosity,  love,  hope,  and  fear,  was  never 
combined  in  the  universe  before  ;  nor  is  such  a  combination  pos- 
sible, save  to  an  infinite,  incarnate,  atoning  God.  And  what  do 
facts  say  ?  Need  the  oft  repeated  story  of  the  Moravian  brethren 
and  the  poor  Greenlanders  be  told  again  ?  Need  the  experience 
of  ages  past,  and  of  every  faithful  and  successful  minister  of  the 
present  day,  be  rehearsed  in  proof?  Nay,  we  all  know  the  fact ; 
it  lies  on  the  very  surface  of  the  system,  as  well  as  in  its  lowest 
depths  ;  yea,  I  had  almost  said,  it  is  its  all  in  all. 

What,  therefore,  the  internal  interpretation  affirms,  as  it  re- 
gards the  natural  influence  of  the  system  of  forgiveness  by  faith 
in  Christ,  is  an  obvious  and  well  known  truth  ;  and  it  is  true 
concerning  this  system  alone.  The  argument,  then,  is  not  only 
perfectly  logical,  but  one  of  the  highest  importance  and  power. 

But  what  shall  we  say  of  the  external  interpretation  ?  How 
does,  or  how  can  an  external  rite  prove  that  the  system  of 
forgiveness  of  sins  through  Christ  produces  death  to  sin  ?  The 
reply  of  the  Fathers  would  have  been  logical  if  true.  They 
held  that  Christ  gave  to  the  water  a  purging  power ;  it  was  holy 
water ;  there  was  a  mysterious  energy  to  destroy  sin  and  to  com- 
municate the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  they  urged  sinners  to  come  to 
the  baptismal  pool,  very  much  as  sinners  are  urged  to  come  to 
the  inquirer's  seat,  or  even  to  Christ.  Alas  for  the  religion  of 
Christ !  for  centuries  long  and  dark  this  was  almost  the  only  view 
of  the  church  ;  and  let  those  who  attach  such  weight  to  patristic 
interpretation,  weigh  well,  before  they  give  it  much  authority, 
that  malignant  and  damnable  system — of  which  it  was  an  essen- 
tial part — BAPTISMAL  REGENERATION  !  What  tongue  can  utter 
the  delusion,  the  spiritual  despotism  and  the  misery,  which  have 
been  poured  from  that  full  cup  of  wrath  on  a  guilty  world  ! 
This  view,  therefore,  is  not  only  to  be  rejected  as  false,  but  to 
be  abhorred  as  unutterably  pernicious. 


92  LOGICAL    EXIGENCIES    OF    ROM.    VI.    3,  4.  §  32. 

We  come  then  to  all  that  remains — to  the  moral  influence  of  the 
solemnity  of  the  baptismal  promise  and  rite,  as  exhibited  by 
Prof.  Chase,  and  others ;  or,  to  the  argument  from  its  import,  as 
stated  by  Dr.  Carson.  According  to  the  first  view,  those  who 
have  been  duly  immersed  are  supposed  to  be  thus  addressed  : 
*'  keflect  how  solemn  your  professions  and  promises  in  the  hour 
of  baptism,  and  how  significant  the  rite  by  which  your  duty  was 
shadowed  forth,  and  your  relations  to  Christ  presented  to  the 
mind.  Did  you  not  solenmly  promise,  when  immersed,  to  die 
unto  sin  and  to  live  unto  God  ?  And  as  you  sank  into  a  watery 
grave,  and  came  forth  once  more  to  the  vital  air,  did  you  not 
solemnly  show  forth  your  duty  to  die  to  sin,  and  rise  to  a  new 
and  holy  life,  and  also  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  by  which  your  salvation  was  procured  ?" 

It  is  painful  indeed  even  to  seem  to  speak  severely  of  what  is 
so  sincerely  and  conscientiously  said.  But,  in  fidelity  to  God  and 
to  man,  I  am  constrained  to  ask  :  What  does  all  this  amount  to, 
unless  it  be  to  throw  the  main  and  peculiar  reforming  power  of 
the  gospel,  upon  the  influence  to  be  exerted  by  the  solemnities  of 
one  external  rite  ?  And  is  ?t  come  to  this  ?  Is  this  all  the 
answer  that  even  an  apostle  can  give  to  an  objection  against  the 
gospel,  so  deep,  so  fundamental  ?  Are  solemn  promises  and  the 
moral  power  of  one  rite,  the  vital  and  essential  elements  of  the 
reforming  power  of  the  gospel  ?  God  forbid  that  1  should  deny 
or  diminish  their  usefulness  in  their  place.  But  this  is  not  their 
place.  We  all  know — universal  experience  has  taught  us — that 
promises,  however  solemn,  and  rites  however  significant,  have 
no  such  reforming;  power.  And  universal  observation  has  shown, 
that  those  who  are  baptized  by  the  particular  mode  of  immersion, 
are  not  by  it  made  better  Christians  than  others.  On  this  point 
let  Prof.  Chase  himself  speak.  "  To  you,"  he  ^ays,  "  I  have 
intrusted  the  vindicating  of  my  wisdom  and  goodness  in  the  in- 
stitution of  baptism,  by  exemplifying  in  your  lives  its  holy  ten- 
dency. Vain  are  all  other  vindications  without  this."  Sermon 
on  the  Design  of  Baptism,  p.  28.      But  he  says,  p.  26,    "  Chris- 


§  32.  LOGICAL    EXIGENCIES    OF    ROM.    VI.    3,  4.  93 

tians  living  in  error  on  tliis  subject,  and  attached,  as  men  naturally 
are,  to  what  has  been  handed  down  from  their  fathers,  have  mark- 
ed  us ;  and  the  men  of  the  world  have  marked  us.  They  have 
observed  our  lives.  And  have  we  never  heard  the  keen  reproach  : 
What  do  ye  more  than  others  ?  Ah !  my  brethren,  if  it  were 
only  a  slander,  we  could  bear  it.  But  when  he  himself — our 
Lord  and  Master — into  whose  death  we  have  been  baptized,  casts 
on  us  the  grieved  and  piercing  look,  which  he  cast  on  Peter  when 
he  had  denied  him,  and  asks  :  What  do  ye  more  than  others  ?  we 
can  only  go  out  and  weep  bitterly."  Will  my  honored  brother 
allow  me  to  suggest,  that,  if  he  will  place  infinitely  less  depend- 
ence on  the  power  of  that  external  rite,  in  which  he  differs  from 
other  Christians,  and  infinitely  more  dependence  on  those  great 
truths  of  the  system,  which  he  has  in  common  with  other  Chris- 
tians, and  on  which  its  reforming  power  is  entirely  based,  he  will 
have  reached  the  true  and  only  secret  of  irresistibly  moving  mo- 
ral appeals  ?  Till  then,  unless  all  the  laws  of  the  human  mind 
shall  be  changed,  he  will  labor  in  vain  to  secure,  by  the  aid  of 
any  external  rite,  the  end  which  he  so  sincerely  and  ardently 
desires. 

But  Dr.  Carson  and  others  will  say  :  That  is  not  our  view. 
We  hold  that  Paul  uses  the  symbolical  import  of  baptism,  to 
prove  that  believers  are  in  fact  dead  to  sin.  To  this  I  reply  :  It 
does  not  help  the  case ;  for  any  external  rite,  in  such  a  course  of 
argument,  cannot  prove  any  such  thing.  How  can  the  operation 
of  any  system  on  the  mind  be  proved,  except  by  looking  directly 
at  the  mind  itself,  and  considering  the  effect  of  the  system  on  it  ? 
To  test  the  argument,  let  us  suppose  an  objector,  and  see  what 
Dr.  Carson  on  his  ground  can  reply. 

Obj.  I  distrust  this  system  of  freely  forgiving  the  greatest 
sins  through  faith  in  Christ.  It  tends  to  encourafife  men  to 
live  in  sin. 

Dr.  C.  Not  at  all.  Those  who  live  under  it  are  of  course 
dead  to  sin. 

Obj.     Pray  how  do  you  prove  that  ? 


94  LOGICAL    EXIGENCIES    OF    ROM.    VI.    3,  4.  §  32. 

Dr.  C.  Are  you  indeed  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know  ?  Why  it 
is  clearly  proved  by  the  import  of  the  baptismal  rite. 

Obj.     Pray  explain  the  nature  of  the  proof  ? 

Dr.  C.  It  exhibits  those  baptized  in  a  figure,  as  dead  with 
Christ,  and  thus  proves  that  they  are  so.     See  p.  143. 

Obj.  But  how  can  an  external  exhibition  of  this  sort  prove 
that  Christians  are  dead  to  sin  ? 

Dr.  C.  Thus.  This  is  not  an  accidental  similitude,  but  a 
divinely  appointed  emblem ;  and,  therefore,  what  it  indicates 
God  affirms,  and,  therefore,  it  must  be  true.     See  p.  143. 

Obj.  So  then  it  amounts  to  this  ;  it  is  so,  because  God  de- 
clares it  to  be  so  by  this  rite  ? 

Dr.  C.     Yes,  this  is  its  force. 

Obj.  Well  then,  if  it  were  a  case  of  mere  authority,  and  not 
of  argument,  it  would  be  in  point.  But  as  a  means  of  removing 
my  difficulties  by  argument,  it  is  not  in  point.  For  I  am  look, 
incr  at  a  system  of  forgiveness  of  sins  ;  and  I  affirm  that  it  appears 
to  me  as  if  it  would  encourage,  and  not  check  sin.  And  you 
undertook  to  reason  with  me,  and  yet  you  explain  nothing,  and 
only  silence  me  by  mere  authority.  Can  you  not  reason  with  me, 
and  show  from  the  system  itself,  and  from  the  laws  of  the  mind, 
that  it  does  not  so  tend  ?  Lay  aside,  I  beseech  you,  your  ex- 
ternal  symbols,  and  look  at  the  things  themselves.  Just  show 
me  the  necessary  operation  of  the  system  on  the  mind  of  a  for- 
given sinner. 

What  can  Dr.  Carson  do  but  comply  with  his  request  ?  And 
this  brings  him  at  once  to  the  true  and  internal  mode  of  inter- 
pretation— to  lay  aside  all  external  rites,  and  to  bend  all  his  en- 
ergies to  prove,  by  an  appeal  to  the  mind  under  the  operation  of 
the  system,  that  it  has  a  reforming,  and  not  a  demoralizing 
power.  And  this,  as  I  have  already  shown,  is  precisely  what 
Paul  does,  without  the  least  allusion  to  an  external  rite. 

The  obvious  fact  is,  that  all  allusion  to  an  external  rite  is  here 
out  of  place.  It  destroys  the  train  of  reasoning,  perplexes  and 
confuses  the  mind,  and  causes  a  deep  and  painful  feeling  of  the 


§  33.         ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  USUS  LOQUENDI.  95 

entire  absence  of  logical  proof.  Hence  we  need  not  wonder,  that 
logical  minds  have  felt  this.  Mr.  Barnes  says  openly,  that  there 
is  no  reasoning  here,  but  mere  popular  appeal ;  and  truly,  accor- 
ding to  the  external  mode  of  interpretation,  there  is  none.  But 
is  this  the  place  for  popular  appeal  ?  If  ever  an  objection  de- 
served a  thorough  and  logical  reply,  this  is  the  one.  Moreover, 
up  to  this  point  we  have  had  reasoning,  cogent  and  condensed. 
Why  suppose  a  break  in  the  chain  here  ?  Above  all  other  places, 
this  ought  to  be  strictly  logical,  and  unanswerably  strong ;  and 
so  indeed  it  is.  There  is  no  break  ;  there  is  no  flaw  ;  there  is 
no  relying  on  popular  appeal ;  there  is  no  magnifying  of  the 
power  of  promises,  professions,  and  external  rites.  But  there  is 
a  close  logical  and  unanswerable  argument,  from  the  necessary 
operation  of  the  gospel  on  the  human  mind.  But  this  will  be- 
come still  more  evident,  when  we  proceed  to  consider  the  requi- 
sitions of  the  usus  loquendi,  as  to  spiritual  crucifixion,  death, 
burial,  etc. 

§  33.     Argument  from  the  Usus  Loquendi  as  to  Spiritual  Death, 
Burial,  etc. 

We  have  great  reason  for  gratitude,  that  the  mode  of  speech, 
used  in  these  disputed  passages,  is  not  limited  to  them,  but  exists 
in  numerous  other  places,  where  it  can  be  the  subject  of  no  fair 
dispute.  The  usus  loquendi  in  question,  is  not  accidental,  without 
rules,  and  obscure,  but  based  on  principles  clear,  certain,  and 
consistent.  It  is  found  chiefly  in  the  writings  of  Paul,  but 
it  clearly  occurs  in  those  of  Peter.     Its  principles  are  these  : 

1 .  The  spiritual  crucifixion,  towards  which  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  tends,  as  already  shown,  is  a  work  involving  great  and  in- 
tense pain,  and  to  induce  a  man  to  summon  all  his  resolution  and 
energy  to  do  it  thoroughly,  powerful  motives  are  needed. 

2.  Such  is  the  nature  of  man,  that  the  most  powerful  motives, 
by  which  he  can  be  influenced,  must  be  derived  from  the  follow- 
ing sources — (1)  affecting  examples  of  fortitude  in  suffering — 


96  ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  USUS  LOQUENDI.         §  33. 

(2)  infinite  blessings  received  through  a  suffering  friend — (3) 
the  deep  interest  of  that  friend  in  our  suffering  for  him.  The 
loss  of  fortitude  to  endure  suffering  for  the  general  good,  and  a 
love  of  indolence  and  ease,  are  the  universal  characteristics  of 
our  depraved  nature,  and  are  the  hardest  of  all  to  be  overcome. 
But  if  the  idea  can  be  fully  thrown  into  the  mind,  and  kept 
daily  before  it,  that  our  highest  benefactor  himself  svffered  with 
infinite  fortitude,  and  not  only  so,  but  that  he  thus  suffered  ybr  us, 
and  not  only  so,  that  he  infinitely  and  ardently  desires  to  form  the 
same  traits  in  us,  and  rejoices  to  see  us,  from  love  to  him,  crucify 
the  spirit  of  indolence,  indulgence,  and  ease,  and  learn  to  rejoice 
in  a  life  of  fortitude  and  suffering  for  the  good  of  others,  like  his 
own,  then  motives  are  concentrated  and  accumulated,  the  power 
of  which  no  man  can  resist. 

3.  It  is  the  design  of  this  mode  of  speech  to  combine  all  these 
varied  motives  in  one  condensed  appeal.  The  mode  adopted  is 
this.  Christ  and  the  believer  are  represented  as  mutually  inter- 
ested in  each  other,  and  both  as  suffering  for,  and  with,  the  other. 
The  part  in  each,  that  suffers,  is  called  by  the  same  name — the 
flesh.  But  in  the  one  case,  it  is  external  and  material — the  body 
of  Christ.  In  the  other,  it  is  internal  and  spiritual — the  body  of 
sin,  the  old  man.  As  each  is  spoken  of  as  having  a  body,  so  each 
body  is  represented  as  composed  of  members ;  in  the  one  case, 
external  and  material  as  before,  in  the  other  case,  internal  and 
spiritual,  i.  e.  various  and  deep-rooted  habits  of  sin,  to  be  eradi- 
cated by  a  process  as  painful  as  to  cut  off  a  right  hand  or  foot,  or 
to  pluck  out  a  right  eye.  Thus  we  have  the  body  of  sin,  and  its 
members,  the  old  man  and  his  members,  which  are  the  same  as 
the  flesh,  with  its  affections  and  lusts. 

All  these  then  are  spoken  of  as  to  be  crucified,  eradicated,  and 
destroyed  ;  but  as  the  work  is  excessively  painful,  and  flesh  and 
blood  shrink  from  its  thorough  execution,  the  example  of  Christ, 
as  enduring  intense  pain  in  his  flesh,  i.  e.  his  body  and  members, 
in  the  agonies  of  crucifixion  for  us,  is  presented  as  an  example  for 
us  to  imitate,  in  our  moral  crucifixion  for  him.     And  we  are  ad- 


§  :^3.  ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    USUS    LOQUENDI.  97 

jured,  in  view  of  such  an  example,  sucli  love  for  us,  and  such 
deep  present  interest  in  us,  to  arm  ourselves  with  the  same  resolute 
purpose  to  suffer  for  him,  in  crucifying  and  destroying  the  flesh. 
This  entire  train  of  thought  is  fully  set  forth  in  1  Pet.  iv.  1  :  "  For- 
asmuch  then  as  Christ  hath  suffered  for  us  in  the  flesh,  arm  your- 
selves likewise  with  the  same  mind  (i.e.  summon  all  your  energy 
to  suffer  for  him  in  the  flesh)  ;  for  he  that  hath  suffered  in  the  flesh 
hath  ceased  from  sin.^''  In  other  words,^e  who  hath  crucified  the 
flesh,  with  the  affections  and  lusts  thereof,  hath  ceased  from  sin. 
Only  the  internal  sense  is  here  possible  ;  for  crucifying  the  flesh, 
in  this  sense,  does  destroy  sin  ;  bodily  suffering  does  not.  The 
final  result  is  then  stated  :  "  that  he  no  longer  should  live  the  rest 
of  his  time  in  the  flesh  (i.e.  in  the  body,  or  in  this  world),  to  the 
lusts  of  man,  but  to  the  will  of  God."  Here  then  we  have  the 
work  to  be  done — to  crucify  the  flesh,  and  the  example  of  Christ 
in  suffering,  the  fact  that  it  was  for  us  that  he  suffered,  and  his 
earnest  desire  that  we  should  indicate  the  same  fortitude  in  suffer- 
ing for  him,  in  order  to  become  holy,  and  live  in  this  world  for 
God,  and  not  for  man.  Thus  the  appeal  is  thorough  and  com- 
plete. And  how  great  its  power  !  Christian,  are  you  relaxing 
your  efforts  to  subdue  sin  1  Do  you  say.  It  is  too  painful,  I  can- 
not endure  it  ?  But  Oh,  think  again.  Did  Christ,  your  Saviour, 
suffer  so  much  that  you  may  be  forgiven,  and  be  restored  to  holi- 
ness, and  does  he  earnestly  desire  it  ?  has  lie  fixed  his  heart  upon 
it  ?  is  he  deeply  grieved  at  your  negligence  and  sloth  ?  Will  you 
not  then  arouse  yourself  at  once  ?  Think  of  the  fortitude  and 
firmness  with  which  he  armed  himself  when  he  suffered  for  you  ; 
and  arm  yourself  with  the  same  mind  to  suffer  for  him,  in  becom- 
ing holy,  which  he  manifested  in  suffering  that  you  might  become 
holy. 

This  mode  of  speech  is  carried  out  in  other  parts  of  Scripture, 
in  great  minuteness  of  detail,  but  always  on  this  principle,  that 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  are  supposed  to  be  fully  before  the  mind, 
as  an  object  of  daily  meditation  and  imitation,  and  that  whatever 
took  place  naturally  in  connexion  with  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 

5 


98 


ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    USUS    LOQUENDI. 


§ 


has  something  to  correspond  with  it  spiritually,  in  its  connexion 
with  the  sufferings  of  believers.     Thus  : 


CHRIST. 

[  1.  Christ  suffered  naturally. 

2.  Christ  in  his  flesh,  i.e.  body 
natural.  #  .  * 

3.  The  members  of  Christ's 
body  were  crucified. 

4.  Christ's  body  died  entirely. 
All  natural  life  was  total- 
ly extinct. 

5.  Christ's  natural  death  was 
for  sin. 

6.  Christ  was  buried  natural- 
ly, and  became  invisible  in 
the  grave. 

7.  Christ  rose  naturally,  and 
appeared  in  new  external 
glory. 

8.  It  was  the  mighty  natural 
power  of  God  that  raised 
Christ. 

9.  Christ  after  his  resurrec- 
tion sat  down  in  heavenly 
places,  bodily. 

10.  Christ  dies  naturally  no 
more  ;  death  hath  no  more 
dominion  over  him. 


THE    BELIEVER. 

1.  The  believer  suffers  spiritu- 

ally. 

2.  The  believer  in  his  flesh,  i. 

e.  body  of  sin. 

3.  The  members  of  the  body 

of  sin  are  to  be  crucified. 

4.  The    body    of  sin,   the  old 

man,  the  flesh,  is  to  be 
entirely  destroyed. 

5.  The      believer's      spiritual 

death  is  to  sin. 

6.  The  believer  is  to  be  buried 

spiritually  and  to  become 
invisible  in  his  old  charac- 
ter. 

7.  The  believer  is  to  rise  spi- 

ritually and  appear  in  a 
new,  holy,  glorious,  spiri- 
tual character. 

8.  It  is  the  mighty   power  of 

God  through  faith  that 
raises  the  believer. 

9.  Believers  sit  down  by  faith 

in  heavenly  places,  after 
their  resurrection. 
10.  Believers  die  in  sin  no 
more  ;  death  spiritual  hath 
no  more  dominion  over 
them. 


This  process  is  sometimes  stated  antithetically,  and  in  separate 


§  33.  ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    USUS    LOQUENDI. 


99 


parts,  but  it  is  also  expressed  in  abbreviated  forms  of  speech 
formed  by  compounding  the  word  denoting  the  action  with  rfuv, 
e.  g.  (i\ji}.'T(a.(i'^u,  tfurfraupow,  tfuva'rro^v'/jtfxw,  rfu^wo'Toiew,  cr'uvs^si'pw, 
tfu^xa^i^oj,  etc.  ;  in  all  which  cases  is  implied,  I  do  or  suffer  that 
spiritually,  which  Christ  did  or  suffered  naturally.  So  believers 
are  said  to  suffer,  be  crucified,  die,  be  buried,  be  restored  to  life, 
be  raised,  sit  in  heavenly  places,  and  live  for  ever  ivith  Christ, 
i.  e.  spiritually,  as  in  his  case  naturally. 

The  reason  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  two  f.icts. 

1.  Christ  suffered,  died,  etc.,  naturally,  in  order  to  secure,  not 
only  forgiveness,  but  also  these  very  spiritual  changes  in  us,  and 
it  is  the  power  of  his  example  and  love  which  in  fact  produces 
them.  As  Christ,  therefore,  had  all  these  things  in  view,  when 
he  suffered,  and  as  his  sufferings  rendered  them  sure,  the  spiritual 
sufferings  of  believers  are  looked  on  as  virtually  included  in  the 
natural  sufferings  of  Christ :  their  death  to  sin  in  his/or  it — their 
spiritual  burial, 'resurrection,  and  eternal  life,  in  his  natural  burial, 
resurrection,  and  eternal  life.  For  surely  one  series  did  involve 
and  render  certain  the  other  ;  and  so  when  one  came  to  pass 
actually,  the  other  did  virtually. 

2.  The  ardent  love  to  Christ,  which  ever  glowed  in  the  breast 
of  Paul,  led  him  to  devise  this  mode  of  speech,  as  the  best  adapted 
to  express  his  unutterable  affection  for  his  Saviour,  his  all-absorb- 
ing admiration  of  his  character,  and  his  infinite  and  intense  desire 
to  be  in  all  things  one  with  him.  Hence,  as  the  sufferings  of  his 
own  adored  Lord  and  Saviour  passed  every  hour  before  his  mind, 
an  intense  desire  arose,  as  it  were,  to  make  them  his  own,  that  is, 
to  identify  himself  with  him,  in  absolute  and  perfect  sympathy, 
and,  especially,  to  admire,  and  adore,  and  imitate  his  character 
in  that  humiliation,  and  those  sufferings  which  he  underwent  for 
us.  But  before  he  could  thus  perfectly  sympathize  with  Christ, 
lie  must  of  course  renounce  and  crucify  entirely  all  former  am- 
bitions, selfish  and  worldly  modes  of  feeling  ;  for  he  could  not 
perfectly  sympathize  with  such  suffering  love,  till  he  was  per- 
fectly like  him.     Hence,  the  least  remains  of  sin  he  regarded  as 


100  AEGUMENT    FROM    THE   TJSUS    LOQUENDI.  §  33. 

excluding  him  from  a  perfect  experimental  and  sympathetic 
knowledge  of  the  character  of  Christ ;  and,  by  self-crucifixion,  to 
reach  this  point  of  a  perfect  experimental  sympathy  in  th?  abso- 
lute perfection  of  a  suffering  Saviour,  was  the  summit  erf  all  his 
desires.  Hear  him  as  he  exclaims  :  "  I  count  all  things  loss  for 
the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ,  my  Lord,  that  I 
may  know  him  and  the  power  of  his  resuri'ection,  and  the  fellow- 
ship of  his  sufferings,  being  made  conformable  unto  his  death." 
And  again  :  "  I  am  crucified  with  Christ ;  nevertlieless  I  live,  yet 
not  I,  but  Christ  liveth  in  me."  And  again  :  "  God  forbid  that  I 
should  glory,  save  in  the  cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  by  whom 
the  world  is  crucified  unto  me,  and  I  unto  the  world." — The  vari- 
ous forms  of  this  mode  of  speech,  in  all  its  range,  are  not  the  mere 
offspring  of  a  luxuriant  poetic  imagination.  Nor  are  they  merely 
the  intellectual  play  of  a  fancy,  that  delights  to  trace  analogies, 
and  amuse  with  alliterations.  They  are  the  sacred,  elevated 
spiritual  language  of  unutterable  love,  the  full  power  and  beauty 
of  which  no  eye  can  see,  or  heart  feel,  that  has  never  felt  the 
emotions  from  which  it  sprang.  Without  them,  it  may  seem  like 
a  mere  heartless  play  of  the  imagination ;  with  them,  it  will  at 
once  be  recognised  as  the  spontaneous,  irresistible  gushing  forth 
of  the  emotions  of  a  heart,  every  impulse  of  which  is  towards 
Christ,  every  desire  of  which  is  to  be  like  him  in  all  things,  and  one 
with  him  in  joys  and  sorrows,  in  life  and  death.  And  sad  was 
that  day  for  the  primitive  church,  when  her  heart  ceased  to  beat 
responsive  to  that  of  Paul,  and  darkness  fell  upon  the  deep  spiri- 
tual import  of  his  sacred  words.  Then,  in  a  fatal  hour,  the  mys- 
tery of  iniquity  began  to  work  ;  and  soon,  regeneration,  by  an 
external  form,  and  mystic,  hidden  influences,  usurped  the  place  of 
the  real  crucifixion  of  the  body  of  sin. 

To  illustrate  these  principles  by  quotations  in  detail,  would  ex- 
ceed my  limits.  I  shall  only  refer  to  the  following  passages  of 
Scripture,  on  which  they  are  based,  and  which,  in  order  to  see 
the  whole  truth  on  the  subject,  ought  to  be  carefully  examined. 

In  Eph.  i.  19-23,  and  ii.  1-7,  natural  death,  resurrection, 
etc.,  in  Christ,  arc  viewed  analogically  with  death  in  sin,  resur- 


§  33.        ARGUMENT  FROM  THE  USUS  LOQUENDI.  101 

rection  from  sin,  etc.,  in  believers  ;  and  the  power  of  God,  rais- 
ing Christians  by  faith,  is  compared  to  his  natural  power  in  rais- 
ing Christ,  and  is  said  to  be  analogical  to  it ;  and  the  idea  that  be- 
lievers are  restored  to  life,  rise  and  sit  down  spiritually  in  hea- 
ven, as  Christ  did  naturally,  and  that  these  changes  in  him 
involved  theirs,  is  expressed  by  tfuvs^woTrofrjij's,  Cuv/j/Sips,  Cuvsxot^jtrs. 
In  Phil.  iii.  10-21,  Paul  desires  to  know  fully,  and  in  a  spiri- 
tual sense, — that  which  corresponds  by  analogy  to  these  natural 
changes  in  Christ, — 1,  sufferings  ;  2,  death  ;  3,  resurrection  ;  4, 
experience  of  divine  power  ;  and  he  shows  how  he  aimed  at  the 
spiritual  perfection,  involved  in  a  perfect  similitude  to  the  natural 
events — i.  e.  a  perfect  moral  crucifixion,  death,  and  resurrection) 
— though  he  had  not  yet  attained,  and  was  not  yet  perfect.  There 
is  not  the  least  allusion  to  his  own  7iatural  resurrection,  here.  That 
would  take  place  of  course,  and  without  any  effort  on  his  part, 
and  the  law  of  analogy  totally  forbids  such  an  interpretation.  In 
Col.  ii.  20,  and  iii.  1-4,  we  have,  1,  death  to  the  world  with 
Christ ;  2,  a  resurrection  with  Christ,  and  a  sympathy  with  the 
things  where  Christ  is,  producing  an  internal  and  hidden  life  in 
him.  Both  of  these  changes  in  the  believer  are  internal  and  spi- 
ritual, and  in  Christ  external. 

See  also  Gal.  vi.  14,  1  Pet.  iv.  1,  2,  Gal.  ii.  19,  20,  Col.  iii. 
5-14,  Gal.  V.  24.  To  these  add  Rom.  vi.  1-13  and  Col.  ii. 
11-13.  Some  of  these  have  been  referred  to  before  ;  and  the 
last  two  contain  the  passages  in  dispute  ;  but  I  refer  to  them  now, 
in  order  to  present  the  Scripture  evidence  in  a  single  group. 
One  thing  more  deserves  our  notice  in  this  place.  Two  spiritual 
states  are  sometimes  used  as  analogical  to  the  death  of  Christ, — 
one  death  in  sin,  as*  in  Eph.  ii.  1-7,  and  Col.  ii.  11-13,  the 
other  death  to  sin  by  moral  crucifixion,  as  in  Rom.  vi.  1-13  and 
Phil.  iii.  10-21.  But  in  no  case  is  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
analogy  disregarded,  i.  e.  that  the  states  or  changes  in  believers 
are  spiritual  and  internal,  those  of  Christ  natural  and  external. 
In  the  sense  of  death  in  sin,  moreover,  they  are  never  said  to  bo 
lead  with  Christ ;  for,  to  secure  such  a  death  in  them,  he  did  not 


102  ARGUMENT    FROM    THE    USUS    LOQUENDI.  §  33. 

aim  ;  but  their  death  in  sin  is  merely  spoken  of  as  calling  for  the 
exercise  of  the  mighty  power  of  God  to  raise  them  up,  just  as  ' 
Christ's  natural  death  demanded  almighty  natural  power  in  order 
to  raise  him  up. 

The  inferences  which  1  draw  from  this  exhibition  of  the  usus 
loquendi,  are  these  : 

1.  The  general  law  of  analogy  demands  the  internal  sense 
throughout  the  whole  of  Rom.  vi.  1-13  and  Col.  ii.  11-13. 
Look  at  the  preceding  columns  of  parallel  analogies.  Of  these 
all  but  6  and  7  are  undeniably  internal  and  spiritual  on  one  side, 
and  external  and  natural  on  the  other.  By  what  law  can  8  out 
of  10,  in  a  connected  series,  be  internal  and  spiritual,  and  the 
other  two  external  and  physical  ? 

2.  Of  these  two,  one — resurrection — is  clearly  proved,  in  the 
analogous  passages,  to  be  used  in  a  spiritual  sense.  See  Eph.  ii. 
5,  6,  and  Col.  iii.  1.  Does  not  the  usus  loquendi  then  demand 
that  sense  here  ? 

3.  The  resurrection  in  Col.  ii.  11-13  is  proved,  by  internal 
evidence,  to  be  spiritual  ;  for  it  is  hy  faith.  Compare  this  now 
with  precisely  the  same  idea  in  Eph.  i.  18-20,  and  ii.  4-6, 
Phil,  iii.' 10,  11,  Col.  i.  3  ;  and  who  can  doubt?  So  in  keeping 
believers,  God  exercises  his  mighty  power  through  faith,  1  Pet.  i. 
5  :  'Ev  (5uva,a£j  ©sou  (ppoupoufxs'voug  (5(a  it\(irz(^g,  sig  tfwrTjpi'ocv.  So  in 
Col.  (f-o)jr]ysp6-r]T£  oia,  Tr,g  'fficfrsug  t%  svspyslag  tov  Qsov  denotes  :  "  ye 
were  raised  with  him,  by  that  faith,  through  which  the  power  of 
God  exerts  itself."  Of  course,  if  the  resurrection  is  spiritual,  so 
is  the  burial. 

4.  In  the  phrase,  ^«,va<rov  avrov,  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  the  law  of  ana- 
logy requires  avrov  to  be  regarded  as  the  genitive  of  similitude, 
i.  e.  a  death  like  his,  or  analogical  to  it.  This  use  of  the  genitive 
is  exceedingly  common;  as  in  Jude  11,  the  way  of  Cain,  the 
error  of  Balaam,  and  the  gainsaying  of  Core  mean  a  way,  error, 
and  gainsaying,  like  that  of  Cain,  Balaam,  and  Core.  So  in  Luke 
xi.  29,  the  sign  of  Jonas,  the  prophet,  is  a  sign  like  that  of  Jonas, 
the  prophet ;  for  in  fact  it  was  the  burial  of  Christ  three  days  and 


§  34.  CONGRUITY    OF    INTERPRETATION.  103 

nights.  But  to  put  it  beyond  all  doubt,  in  v.  5  it  is  expressed  in 
full — Tw  o/xo»:,'j/xarj  tov  Savarov  aOrou — "  the  likeness  of  his  death," 
i.  e.  a  spiritual  death,  like  his  natural  death. 

5.  Finally,  the  usus  loquendi,  as  it  regards  both  spiritual  bap 
tism,  and  spiritual  crucifixion  and  death,  authorizes  and  requires 
us  thus  to  interpret  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12. 

Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us,  as  have  been  purified  into 
Christ  (i.  e.  truly  united  to  Christ  by  the  forgiveness  of  sins),  have 
been,  by  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  subjected  to  a  spiritual  death,  like 
his  natural  death  ?  Therefore  as  he  was  naturally  buried,  so  are 
we  spiritually  buried  by  that  forgiveness  of  sins,  which  subjected 
us  to  a  spiritual  death.  That,  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk 
in  newness  of  life.  Rom.  vi.  3,  4.  As  he  was  buried  naturally, 
so  were  ye  spiritually  buried  in  the  forgiveness  of  your  sins,  in 
which  ye  also  rose  spiritually  as  he  did  naturally,  by  that  faith 
through  which  is  exerted  the  power  of  that  God,  who  raised  him 
from  the  dead.  Col.  ii.  12.  From  the  whole  context,  nothing  can 
be  more  certain  than  the  spiritual  sense  of  this  passage.  We 
have,  in  v.  11,  internal  circumcision,  and  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  flesh  ;  in  v.  12,  a  resurrection  by  ftiith ;  in  v.  13,  an  internal 
death  in  sin  and  an  int(,'rnal  restoration  to  life.  Who  then  can 
liavc  the  least  ground  for  calling  the  burial  an  external  burial  ? 
So  Rom.  vi.  6.  Paul  expressly  states  that  all  that  he  has  said  of 
the  death  of  the  believer  is  to  be  understood  of  the  death  of  the 
old  man,  and  the  destruction  of  the  body  of  sin.  But  of  course 
the  burial  and  resurrection  are  as  the  death. 

§  34.     Argument  from  the  coiigruity  of  the  interpretation  with  the 
general  system  of  truth. 

The  system  of  truth  is  but  one.  Hence  all  truth  is  consistent 
with  itself;  and  the  more  we  investigate  its  minute  relations,  the 
more  arc  we  impressed  with  a  conviction  of  its  universal  har- 
mony. It  is  this  perception  of  congruity  in  ten  thousand  minute 
particulars,  which  produces  what  we  call   a  sense  or   feeling  of 


104  CONGRUITY    OF    INTERPRETATION.  §  34. 

verisimilitude.  And  as  the  operations  of  the  mind  are  often  so 
rapid  as  to  elude  analysis,  it  gives  rise  to  what  may  be  called  a  pre- 
sentiment of  truth,  even  before  investigation.  Nor  is  this  to  be 
despised.  In  any  mind  familiar  with  the  great  outlines  of  truth, 
such  rapid  perceptions  of  the  agreement  or  disagreement  of  a 
given  view  with  those  great  outlines,  have  a  real  and  logical  basis, 
as  investifration  seldom  foils  to  show.  But  Avhen  investis^ation  has 
taken  place,  ihry  can  be  stated  and  exhibited  in  their  true  rela- 
tions. Some  of  the  incongruities  of  the  external  system  of  inter- 
pretation with  the  existing  system  of  truth,  I  shall  proceed  to 
state. 

1.  It  is  incongruous  to  take  so  much  notice  of  one  external  in- 
stitution, and  to  say  nothing  of  the  rest. 

2.  It  is  incongruous,  if  only  one  is  taken,  to  notice  one  which 
is  less  adapted  to  exert  a  great  moral  influence,  and  not  to  notice 
one  more  adapted. 

3.  It  is  incongruous  for  Paul  to  make  so  much  of  any  external 
rite,  and  especially  of  this. 

4.  It  is  still  more  incongruous  for  Jesus  Christ  to  do  the  same. 

5.  It  is  incongruous  to  establish  one  institution  to  com.memorate 
the  death  of  Christ,  and  then  intrude  on  its  province  hj  another 
established  for  a  difFerent  end. 

As  has  been  stated,  the  external  interpretation  rests  the  reform- 
ing power  of  the  gospel,  in  a  great  degree,  on  the  influence  of 
profession  and  promises  connected  with  an  external  rite,  or  on  its 
influence  in  presenting  truth  to  the  mind.  And  are  there  no  other 
institutions  that  have  the  same  external  power  ?  Are  there  no 
solemn  vows  around  the  Lord's  table,  and  no  intensely  affecting 
truths  as  to  the  death  of  Christ,  inculcated  by  it  ?  Does  the  Sab- 
bath declare  nothing  of  a  heavenly  rest,  nor  bid  man  to  die  to  the 
world  ?  Has  the  ministry  and  the  preached  word  no  reforming 
power  ?  Why  say  so  much  of  the  "  holy  tendency"  of  immer- 
sion, and  omit  all  these  ? 

But  if  any  one  of  these  was  to  be  selected,  why  choose  that  one 
which  occurs  but  once  in  the  life  of  a  believer,  and  omit  the  oft- 


§  34.  CONGRUITY    OF    INTERPRETATION.  105 

recurring  influence  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  solemn  promises, 
renewed  with  increasing  fervency,  from  year  to  year,  till  death 
closes  the  scene  ?  Why  say  so  much  of  the  weaker,  and  yet  wholly 
omit  the  stronger  moral  power  ?  Is  there  indeed  in  this  one  rite 
a  secret  mystic  influence,  as  the  Fathers  thought,  operating  with 
immense  power,  breaking  down  and  destroying  all  sin,  actual  and 
original,  at  one  blow  ?  If  not,  and  if  it  stands  solely  on  the  ground 
of  moral  influence,  in  impressing  truth  by  symbols  on  the  mind, 
then  the  selection  of  this,  and  the  omission  of  the  Lord's  supper 
are  truly  incongruous. 

But  if  we  could  expect  such  an  effort  to  magnify  an  external 
rite  from  any  one,  we  should  least  of  all  expect  it  from  Paul,  who 
regarded  it,  in  comparison  with  the  gospel,  as  of  so  little  weight, 
that  he  thanked  God  that  he  baptized  none  of  the  Corinthians,  but 
Crispus  and  Gains  and  the  household  of  Stephanas,  and  affirmed 
that  God  sent  him  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  who 
gloried  in  nothing,  save  in  the  cross  of  Christ.  Is  it  possible  that 
this  same  Paul  has,  in  another  place,  attempted  to  refute  a  fun- 
damental objection  to  this  same  gospel,  by  magnifying  the  influ- 
ence of  this  same  external  rite  ?  What !  at  one  time  ascribe  to 
it  in  some  way  such  prodigious  power  to  eradicate  sin,  and  then 
thank  God  that  he  did  not  administer  it,  and  declare  that  he  was 
not  sent  to  do  it ! 

Turn  now  to  Christ,  and  hear  him  (Matt.  xii.  7)  rebuke  the 
rigid  construers  of  external  observances,  by  the  reproof:  "If  ye 
had  known  what  that  mcaneth,  /  icill  have  mercy  and  not  sacrifice, 
ye  would  not  have  condemned  the  guiltless."  Again,  when  Peter 
desired  a  more  complete  washing  than  the  rest  of  the  disciples 
(John  xiii.  10),  hear  him  declare  that,  to  indicate  complete  purifi- 
cation, a  washing  of  the  feet  is  enough.  And  can  we  believe  that 
this  same  Jesus  inspired  his  beloved  Paul  to  declare  that  purifi- 
cation cannot  be  acceptably  signified  in  more  than  one  way,  and 
that  one,  immersion  of  the  whole  body  ? 

Finally,  the  Lord's  Supper  was  established  to  show  forth  the 
Lord's  atoning  death,  until  he  should  come.     Baptism  indicates 


106  CONGRUITY    OF    INTERPRETATION.  §  34. 

the  actual  purgation  of  the  heart  and  conscience  from  sin,  when 
the  atonement  is  applied  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  One  indicates  how 
redemption  was  procured  ;  the  other,  how  it  is  applied.  One 
commemorates  atonement  by  Christ  ;  the  other,  regeneration  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  But  the  external  interpretation  makes  baptism 
a  commemoration  of  three  things — 1,  the  natural  death  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ ;  2,  the  spiritual  death  and  resurrection  of  the 
believer,  and  3,  the  natural  resurrection  of  the  believer.  Carson, 
p.  232.  This  is  incongruous  indeed.  It  is  a  manifest  intrusion  into 
the  province  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  without  the  least  reason  ; 
and  it  nearly  loses  in  ideas  of  death  and  resurrection,  all  reference 
to  purity.  In  truth,  it  seems  to  immerse,  and  almost  to  bury  out 
of  sight,  the  main  idea  of  the  rite,  and  to  bring  vividly  before  the 
mind  the  fundamental  ideas  of  another  rite  ;  so  much  so,  that,  in 
reading  Prof.  Chase's  sermon  on  the  design  of  baptism,  one  can 
hardly  avoid  feeling  that  it  is  even  more  a  discourse  on  the  design 
of  the  Lord's  Supper,  than  a  discourse  on  the  design  of  that  rite, 
which  was  peculiarly  ordained  to  show  forth  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  Moreover,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  purity,  it  is  not  the  direc^ 
fio-ure  of  the  reality,  but  only  the  figure  of  a  figure  of  the  reality. 
Purification  is  the  reality.  But  immersion,  the  Baptists  all  affirm, 
is  the  figure  of  death.  But  death  is  only  a  figure  of  the  spiritual 
destruction  of  the  old  man,  in  which  purification  actually  consists. 
But  of  purification  it  is  no  figure. 

Such,  then,  are  the  inconsistencies  and  incongruities,  which  at- 
tend all  efforts  to  force  an  external  sense  on  the  baptism  and  burial 
spoken  of  in  these  passages.  But  assign  to  them  the  internal  and 
spiritual  sense,  and  all  is  consistent  and  clear.  For  it  rests  the 
reforming  power  of  the  gospel  on  no  external  rite,  and  intrudes  on 
none.  Nor  does  it  at  all  disagree  with  the  known  character  and 
feelings  of  Christ  or  of  Paul,  but  perfectly  agrees  with  both ;  lor 
it  directs  us  at  once  to  the  internal  power  of  a  spiritual  purgation 
of  the  soul,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  unite  to  Christ,  and  thus  destroy 
the  body  of  sin.  And  it  presents  distinctly  and  fully  to  the  mind, 
that  in  which  Paul  was  wont  most  to  glory — the  cross  of  Christ — 


§  35.  MORAL  TENDENCIES   OF  EACH  INTERPRETATION.  107 

and  the  energy  of  the  gospel  as  the  power  of  God  to  salvation,  to 
every  one  that  believeth. 

§  35.     Argument  from   the    moral    tendencies   and   effects    of 
each  mode  of  interpretation. 

The  principles  of  this  argument  are  plain.  They  are  these. 
All  truth,  in  its  permanent  influences,  tends  to  holiness  ;  all  error, 
to  sin.  Therefore,  if  we  can  show,  a  priori^  that  tendency  to  sin,  in 
any  view,  or  prove  by  an  appeal  to  facts  that  it  has  resulted  in  sin, 
we  are  authorized  to  draw  the  conclusion,  that  the  view  is  false. 
Nevertheless,  in  this  mode  of  reasoning,  great  care  is  needed  not 
to  confound  mere  accidental  sequences,  with  real  and  genuine 
effects.     To  guard  against  this,  note  the  following  facts : 

1.  Self-crucifixion  is,  of  all  things,  most  painful.  From  all 
'suffering,  men  naturally  shrink  -,  but  much  more  from  the  internal 

pain  and  humiliation  attendant  on  subdwing  sin,  than  from  any 
other.  Hence,  to  spare  the  old  man,  pilgrimages,  fastings,  flagella- 
tions, bodily  sufferings  of  all  kinds,  and  even  death  itself,  are  will- 
ingly endured. 

2.  Hence,  in  all  ages  a  universal  propensity  to  avoid  the  real 
and  internal  crucifixion  of  the  old  man,  by  a  reliance  on  exter- 
nal  forms  of  mysterious  operation,  or  on  an  authorized  ministr  , 
or  a  primitive  church,  or  solemn  ceremonies,  rather  than  on  the 
simple  and  sure  crucifixion  of  tlie  flesh,  with  the  affections  and 
lusts  thereof. 

3.  The  most  powerful  system,  by  ^^hich  tlie  devil  ever  cor- 
rupted  and  destroyed  the  gospel  of  Christ,  even  the  great  mystery 
of  iniquity,  has  its  foundation  on  a  skilful  use  of  this  tendency  of 
the  human  heart.  It  is  a  system  expressly  designed  to  exclude 
spiritual  crucifixion,  that  is,  to  exclude  real  holiness,  and  to  re- 
place it  by  a  religion  of  ceremonies  and  forms. 

4.  The  external  interpretation  tends  naturally  to  that  very 
view,  for  its  obvious  sense  is  to  make  external  baptism  the  great 
destroyer  of  sin,  and  the  great  defence  of  the  church  against  it. 

5.  By  the  Fathers,  and  even  by  Augustine,  it  was  practically 


108  MORAL  TENDENCIES  OF  EACH  INTERPRETATION.  §  35- 

so  regarded.  He  did  not,  indeed,  exclude  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  re- 
garded the  water,  when  consecrated,  as  involving,  in  some  myste- 
rious way,  his  presence  ;  and  though  he  threw  out  cautions  against 
the  grosser  forms  of  baptismal  regeneration,  yet  the  practical 
influence  of  his  urgent  appeals  to  sinners,  to  come  to  the  baptismal 
pool,  and  wash  away  all  their  sins,  or  bury  the  old  man,  etc.  etc., 
could  not  possibly  have  but  one  result.  Baptism  became  practi- 
cally the  great  thing  ;  and  on  it,  eternal  life  or  eternal  death  seem- 
ed to  hang.  And  in  all  this  mournful  process,  the  external  inter- 
pretation of  these  texts  is  almost  the  great  moving  poAver  of  the 
whole.  It  is  not  wise  to  give  to  any  one  cause  exclusive  power 
in  forming  the  papal  system,  but  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  no  one 
cause  did  more  than  hapiismal  regeneration  ;  and  no  one  cause  did 
more  to  develope  and  mature  that  doctrine,  than  the  external  inter- 
pretation of  these  texts.  Of  this  fact,  pages  of  proof  are  at  hand, 
and,  if  any  one  desires,  ,can  easily  be  produced.  But,  to  those 
who  have  examined  enough  to  judge,  no  proof,  I  think,  can  be 
needed. 

6.  No  modern  corrections  or  limitations  of  the  patristic  inter- 
pretation of  these  passages  have  been  able  to  neutralize  or  de- 
stroy the  injurious  tendency  of  the  external  view  ;  nor  can  it  be 
done,  so  long  as  the  great  fact  remains,  that  in  an  argument 
designed  unanswerably  to  prove  the  sanctifying  power  of  the 
gospel,  an  external  rite  comes  where  the  internal  energy  of  truth 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  ought  to  come.  The  external  rite,  if  admitted 
at  all  with  such  a  view,  wrests  and  distorts  the  great  outlines 
of  the  whole  picture.  It  is  not  the  glorious  gospel  that  fills  the 
mind,  as  held  by  all  real  Christians,  but  the  peculiar  solemnity, 
fitness,  and  significance  of  the  form  of  immersion,  or  else  the 
solemn  promises  made  when  immersed.  And  on  a  mind  adverse 
to  self-crucifixion,  and  tending  to  self-complacency  and  censori- 
ousness,  what  must  be  the  moral  effect  of  such  appeals  as  these  : 
"  Yes,  my  brethren,  we  have  been  truly  baptized.  We  have 
been  immersed,  and  now  the  world  looks  to  us  for  a  proof  of  its 
sanctifying  power?"     Let  it  be  granted  that  these  things  are  not 


§  35.  MORAL  TENDENCIES  OF  EACH  INTERPRETATION.  l09 

always  said  in  pride,  but  often  in  deep  and  humble  sincerity. 
But  what  art  can  extract  the  venom  they  are  adapted  to  infuse,  or 
prevent  the  inevitable  tendency  to  magnify  certain  forms,  and  to 
freeze  the  heart  of  Christian  love  to  all  who  are  without  the  range 
of  those  forms?  In  multitudes  of  noble  spirits,  I  rejoice  to  record 
it,  the  last  effect  is  not  produced.  But  it  is  to  be  ascribed  to  other 
and  powerful  counteracting  causes,  whilst,  where  no  such  counter- 
acting causes  exist,  the  venom  rages  unchecked  ;  and  we  are  not 
obscurely  told  that  it  is  at  least  uncertain,  whether  a  person  un- 
immersed,  can  ever  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  immersion,  as 
of  old,  practically  usurps  the  place  of  regeneration.  Among  the 
evangelical  Baptists  this,  indeed,  is  not  true ;  other  causes  pre- 
vent. But  there  have  long  been  others  who  equal  or  even  exceed 
them  in  their  zeal  for  immersion,  and  tbe  Mormonites  are  now  to 
be  added  to  the  list.  If  there  is  a  real  sanctifying  power  in  this 
view,  why  are  such  multitudes  of  men,  in  all  parts  of  our  land, 
so  zealous  for  it,  who  yet  give  no  signs  of  crucifying  the  flesh 
with  the  affections  and  lusts  thereof?  The  fact  cannot  be  denied. 
Why  is  it  so  ?  Is  it  not  because  it  presents,  as  a  cross  io  he  taken 
up,  a  mere  external  rite,  and  promises,  in  some  way,  by  the 
mysterious  operation  of  a  form,  to  enable  them  to  escape  the  self- 
crucifixion  they  so  much  dread  ?  And  can  holy  men — men  of 
prayer — sustain  that  very  mode  of  interpretation  on  which  it  all 
rests,  and  not,  whether  they  will  or  no,  confirm  such  men  in  their 
views  ?  Let  all  who  are  truly  holy  cut  loose  from  this  view,  and 
soon  the  unholy  will  sink  it  by  their  own  moral  gravitation,  and 
it  will  disappear. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  internal  interpretation  directs  the  atten- 
tion of  Christians  directly  to  the  interior,  central,  and  fundamental 
work  of  self-crucifixion,  under  the  influence  of  forgiving  love,  and 
declares  that  true  and  real  forgiveness  of  sins,  always  indicates  itself 
by  the  destruction  of  the  flesh  with  the  affections  and  lusts  thereof, 
and  stimulates  and  aids  Christians,  in  the  highest  degree,  by 
example,  and  gratitude,  and  sympathy  between  the  believer  and 
Christ. 


110  OBJECTION    FROM    AUTHORITY    CONSIDERED.  §  36. 

It  is  no  small  loss  then  to  the  Christian  world,  not  only  to  lose 
the  whole  power  of  these  passages  for  good,  but  even  to  have  them 
perverted  for  evil,  or  else  so  obscured  in  the  smoke  of  controversy, 
that  they  produce  almost  no  effect,  except  to  awaken  in  the  mind 
an  anxiety  to  know  whether  they  do  mean  immersion  or  not.  Let 
them  be  redeemed  from  all  perversion  and  controversy,  and  let 
them  utter,  in  clear  tones,  the  full  heart  of  Paul,  and  they  will 
arouse  the  whole  church  to  the  earnest  pursuit  of  eminent  holiness 
as  with  a  trumpet  call. 

§  36.     Ohjection  from  autlioriiy  considered. 

The  influence  of  authority,  with  many  minds,  is  great ;  and  I 
should  not  be  surprised  if  some  should  try  to  urge  the  argumentum 
ad  verecundiani,  in  view  of  opinions  so  numerous  and  respectable 
against  this  result. 

To  this  with  all  deference  I  would  make  the  following  reply  : 

1 .  In  a  radical  discussion  of  the  question, ^re  the  majority  right  ? 
an  appeal  to  names  is  totally  illogical.  This  is  manifestly  a  case 
of  the  kind. 

2.  In  some  cases,  numbers  are  a  presumptive  argument  of 
error,  and  not  of  truth;  i.  e.  in  the  case  of  old  errors,  long  es- 
tablished, and  never  thoroughly  reinvestigated. 

3.  That  this  is  a  case  of  the  kind,  one  striking  proof  will  clear- 
ly show  ; — that  every  argument  for  the  external  sense,  which  I 
have  found  after  extended  search,  has  rested  entirely  on  an  obvi- 
ous, yet  fundamental  petitio  pi'incipii.  I  refer  to  the  fact  that  in 
every  case  it  has  been  assumed,  without  proof,  or  even  an  effort  at 
proof,  that  the  baptism  spoken  of  is  external, — just  as  if  there 
were  no  such  idea,  in  the  word  of  God,  as  internal  baptism,  or  as 
if  it  were  of  no  importance,  and,  therefore,  it  is  always  d  priori 
probable  that  whenever  the  word  is  used,  the  external  rite  is 
meant, — so  probable  that  it  may  always  be  assumed  without  proof. 
Look  now  at  the  works  of  Prof.  Chase,  Dr.  Carson,  and  Prof.  Rip- 
ley, so  often  alluded  to,  and  you  find  not  even  an  effort  to  prove, 


§  36.  OBJECTION    FROM    AUTHORITY    CONSIDERED.  Ill 

philologically,  that  the  baptism  is  external.  It  is  always  assumed. 
And  yet,  as  all  know,  this  is  a  fundamental  point  in  the  whole 
discussion. 

What  then  are  the  facts  as  they  present  themselves  in  the  New 
Testament  ?     They  are  these  : 

1.  There  is  a  baptism,  infinitely  more  important  than  the  ex- 
ternal baptism,  and  of  which  the  external  baptism  is  but  a  sign. 

2.  In  the  spiritual  baptism,  a  believer  is  actually  purged  from 
sin  and  guilt,  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  the  external,  the  forgiveness 
of  sins  is  openly  announced  to  him,  on  the  assumption  that  he 
has  repented  and  believes,  as  he  professes. 

3.  The  person  baptized  is  regarded  as  calling  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord  for  forgiveness,  and  the  baptizer  as  announcing  his  for- 
giveness in  the  name  of  the  Lord.     Acts  xxii.  16. 

4.  In  the  case  of  internal  baptism,  there  is  no  such  external  use 
of  the  name  of  God,  but  a  real  forgiveness  resulting  in  actual  union 
to  Christ.     Hence, 

5.  The  form — (Bci^rl'^^Ed&a.i  zlg  ovo^a.  Xpitfroij — is  adapted  to  ex- 
press the  external  baptism  ;  jSwn'Ti^scf&ai  sis  XpjtfTov,  to  express 
the  internal  baptism,  that  actually  unites  to  Christ. 

6.  To  this  view,  all  facts  accord.  For  in  every  instance  where 
ovo^JM  is  used,  there  is  internal  evidence  in  the  passage  to  prove 
that  external  baptism  is  meant.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  Acts  ii.  38, 
Acts  viii.  16,  Acts  x.  48,  Acts  xix.  5,  Acts  xxii.  16,  1  Cor. 
i.  13,  15. 

But  in  every  case  where  ovofxa  is  omitted,  and  slg  precedes 
XpitfTov  or  tfwixa,  denoting  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  there  is  in- 
ternal evidence  that  external  baptism  is  not  meant,  and  that  inter- 
nal is  meant.  Rom.  vi.  3,  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  Gal.  iii.  27.  In  case 
of  the  first  two,  we  have  exhibited  the  evidence  of  the  internal 
sense  in  the  preceding  argument,  and  in  §  11.  In  Gal.  iii.  27, 
the  sense  of  Puithig  on  Christ  is  fixed  by  Rom.  xiii.  14,  as  de- 
noting, not  an  external  profession  of  religion,  but  a  real  assump- 
tion of  a  holy  character,  like  that  of  Christ.  See  also  Eph.  iv.  24 
and  Col.  iii.  10,  12,  for  a  perfect  demonstration  of  this  sense.     Be- 


112  OBJECTION    FROM    AUTHORITY   CONSIDERED.  §  36. 

sides,  it  is  utterly  unworthy  of  Paul  to  say  :  "  As  many  of  you, 
as  have  been  externally  baptized  into  Christ,  have  made  a  profes- 
sion of  religion,"  but  entirely  worthy  of  him  to  say  :  "  As  many 
as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  spiritually,  have  really  been 
by  it  changed  into  his  image  ;"  and  this  is  true  of  all  who  have 
been  spiritually  baptized,  but  of  all  who  have  been  externally 
baptized  it  is  not  true  ;  yet  Paul  affirms  it  of  all ;  otfoj  s^aicrl^ritiav 
£/V  Xpirfrov. 

In  1  Cor.  X.  2,  s]g  tov  MwutfT^v  s^airr'KfavTo  denotes  neither 
Christian  baptism  nor  external  baptism  ;  but  a  throwing  back  the 
name  of  the  antitype  upon  the  type,  from  a  regard  to  similar  ef- 
fects. Believers,  by  spiritual  baptism,  are  delivered  from  Satan 
and  united  to  Christ.  The  children  of  Israel  were  delivered  from 
Pharaoh,  and  really  united  to  Moses,  as  a  leader  and  saviour,  by 
the  cloud  and  the  sea.  There  was  here  no  external  prof ession,  hut 
a  real  union  to  Moses  as  a  leader,  effected  by  a  separation  and  de- 
liverance from  Pharaoh.  In  all  this,  Moses  was  a  type  of  Christ, 
and,  therefore,  the  name  of  the  antitype  is  thrown  back  upon  this 
transaction,  and  it  is  called  a  baptism  into  Moses,  but  not  into  the 
name  of  Moses.  On  the  same  principle,  i.  e.  regard  to  effects, 
spiritual  baptism  is  called  the  antitype  of  the  salvation  of  Noah 
and  his  family  in  the  ark.  For  as  one  actually  saved  Noah  in 
the  ark,  so  the  other  actually  saves  believers  in  Christ. 

If  these  facts  are  so,  where  is  the  a  priori  improbability  that 
internal  baptism  is  meant  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  which  all  advocates  of 
the  external  sense  have  assumed  ?  The  fact  is  that  the  improba- 
bility, from  the  very  form  of  language,  is  altogether  against  ex- 
ternal baptism ;  and  all,  who  assume  it,  not  only  do  so  without 
proof,  but  without  the  possibility  of  proof,  and  against  clear  proof 
to  the  contrary. 

No  more  striking  instance  can  be  given  of  the  influence  of  a 
technical  and  external  use  of  a  word,  without  any  reference  to 
its  spiritual  signification,  to  turn  away  the  mind  from  the  true 
sense  of  the  word  of  God.  For  in  Eph.  iv.  5,  6,  as  well  as  in 
Rom.  vi.  3,  and  1  Cor.  kxii.  13,  and  Gal.  iii.  27,  the  same  cause  has 


§36.  OBJECTION    FROM    AUTHORITY    CONSIDERED.  113 

entirely  hid  the  true  and  spiritual  sense,  and  put  an  external  rite 
Avhere  the  whole  context  demands  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
One  Lord, — even  Jesus  Christ  who  made  atonement, — one  faith, 
or  glorious  system  of  truth  to  be  believed,  and  one  regeneration, 
— the  glorious  result  of  the  application  of  that  truth  by  the  Holy 
Spirit !  How  incongruous  to  place  an  external  rite  in  such  rela- 
tions, and,  especially,  so  to  exalt  external  baptism,  and  to  say 
nothing  of  the  Lord's  Supper! 

Through  the  same  external,  formal  habit  of  mind,  the  beauti- 
ful and  spiritual  sense  of  Eph.  v.  26  has  been  lost,  though  the 
washing  is  expressly  declared  to  be  by  the  word  of  God — iv 
l^jxaTj ;  and  the  spritual  sense  of  ut^wp  is  overlooked,  though  God 
has  expressly  used  it  as  a  symbol  of  truth.  "  I  will  sprinkle  clean 
water  on  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean." 

So  also  the  spiritual  sense  of  Titus  iii.  5  is  drowned  beneath 
the  flood  of  external  baptismal  regeneration,  though  the  language 
is  exactly  adapted  to  express  the  beginning  and  progress  of  spirit- 
ual life,  or  regeneration  and  sanctification — Xourpov  'vraXi^ysvsa'ia^ 
denoting  the  first,  and  uvaxuivixtig  'jtviCiJ.arog  a.j'iov  the  progressive 
sanctification,  caused  by  abundant  effusions  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Finally,  not  only  is  it  true  that  external  baptism  is  not  meant 
in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  but  it  is  also  true  tliat  there  is 
no  reason  to  think  that  any  part  of  the  language  is  taken  from 
that  rite.     For, 

1.  Even  had  there  been  no  external  rite,  but  internal  baptism 
only,  the  force  of  the  analogy  would  have  called  for  the  use  of 
burial  in  both  of  these  passages.  In  speaking  of  the  spiritual 
crucifixion,  death,  and  resurrection  of  the  believer,  how  could 
Paul  help  inserting  burial  ? 

2.  The  real  origin  of  the  language  is  obvious.  Christ  was 
hiried  in  fact,  as  well  as  crucified,  and  the  same  series  of  events, 
that  furnished  to  Paul  all  the  rest  of  his  figures,  would  naturally 
furnish  this. 

3.  The  ocnius  and  habits  of  Paul's  mind  demand  this  oriirin  : 


114  APOSTOLIC    PRACTICE    CONSIDERED.  §  37. 

for  it  was  not  external  baptism  that  was  daily  before  his  mind, 
but  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 

4.  The  supposed  connexion  or  similitude  between  the  word 
/SotTrri^oj  and  burial,  does  not  exist;  for  /Sa-TTTi'^w  means  to  purify, 
and,  therefore,  would  not  suggest  the  idea  of  burial.  Such,  then, 
is  the  proof  of  the  position  originally  stated,  that  the  haplism, 
burial,  resurrection,  &c.,  spoken  of  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii. 
12,  are  all  internal,  and  that  the  passage  does  not  refer  to  the 
external  rite  at  all,  nor  derive  any  of  its  language  from  it;  but 
that  the  language  would  have  been  just  as  it  is,  if  the  rite  had 
been  administered  by  sprinkling  alone,  or  even  if  there  had  been 
no  external  rite  whatever. 

§  37.     Apostolic  jjractice  considered. 

After  what  has  been  said,  but  few  words  are  needed  on  this 
point.     It  is  plain, 

1.  That  to  us  it  is  of  very  little  consequence,  what  their  pra(;- 
tice  was  ;  for  the  command  was  only  to  purify,  and  God  attaches 
no  importance  to  any  one  mode  rather  than  another. 

2.  It  is  not  possible  decisively  to  prove  the  mode  used  by  the 
apostles  ;  for  if  going  to  rivers,  going  down  to  the  water  and  up 
from  it,  &c.,  create  a  presumption  in  favor  of  immersion,  so  does 
the  baptism  of  three  thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  in  a  city 
where  water  was  scarce,  and  of  the  jailor  in  a  prison,  create  a 
presumption  in  favor  of  sprinkling. 

And  if  a  possibility  of  immersion  can  be  shown  in  the  latter 
cases,  so  can  a  possibility  of  sprinkling  or  pouring,  be  shown  in 
the  former. 

3.  The  command  being  to  purify,  and  the  facts  being  as  stated, 
the  decided  probability  is  that  either  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  immer- 
sion,  was  allowed,  and  Christian  liberty  was  everywhere  enjoyed. 

4.  A  tendency  to  formalism  led  to  a  misinterpretation  of  Paul 
in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12;  and  this  gave  the  ascendency  to 
immersion,    which  increased,    as    before  stated,   till   it    became 


§  38.  FINAL     RESULT.  115 

general,  though  it  was  not  insisted  on  as  absolutely  essential  on 
philological  grounds. 

5.  Various  causes,  even  in  the  Roman  Catholic  church,  at 
length  produced  a  relaxation  of  this  excessive  rigor  of  practice. 
And  most  Protestants,  at  the  Reformation,  took  the  same  ground. 
But, 

6.  A  mistake  in  philology,  afler  the  Reformation,  introduced  a 
practice  stricter  and  more  severe  than  even  that  of  the  Fathers, 
and  which  reprobates  Christian  liberty  on  this  subject,  as  a  cor- 
ruption of  the  word  of  God  ;  because  various  causes  induced  even 
the  Roman  Catholic  church  to  relax  a  little  of  the  excessive 
strictness  of  antiquity.  I  know  that  all  that  comes  from  the 
Roman  Catholic  church  is  a  priori  suspicious.  But  bad  as  that 
church  is,  no  one  can  deny  that  there  is  some  truth  there.  The 
view  I  have  advanced,  I  hold,  not  on  her  authority,  but  on  its  own 
merits.  And  I  will  not  reject  or  deny  a  truth,  even  if  it  is  found 
in  a  corrupt  church. 

§  38.     Final  Result. 

It  appears,  then,  that  the  whole  subject  turns  on  three  points  : 
1,  the  import  of /Sa-TrTJ^w  ;  2,  the  significance  of  the  rite  ;  3,  early 
practice.  On  each,  the  argument  in  favor  of  immersion  rests  on 
a  petitio  principii.  1.  It  is  assumed  as  improbable  that  ^a'm'^w 
can  mean  purify,  without  respect  to  mode,  if  it  also  means,  in 
other  cases,  immerse.  The  falsehood  of  this  assumption  has  been 
shown,  the  existence  of  an  opposite  probability  proved,  and  the 
meaning  p>urify  clearly  established  by  facts.  2.  The  improbabi- 
lity of  internal  baptism  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  has 
been  assumed,  and  external  baptism  has  also  been  assumed  with- 
out proof.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  external  sense,  and  not  the 
internal  sense,  is  improbable,  and  that  against  the  external  sense 
there  is  decisive  proof.  It  has  also  been  assumed  that  the  practice 
of  immersion  by  the  Fathers  and  others,  is  proof  of  their  philology, 
and  that,  therefore,  they  must  have  regarded  the  command  to  baptize 
as  a  command  to  immerse.     The  falsehood  of  this  assumption  has 


116  FINAL    RESULT.  §  38. 

also  been  clearly  shown.  The  result  of  the  whole  is,  that  as  to 
the  mode  of  purification  we  may  enjoy  Christian  liberty  ;  and  that 
immeasurable  evils  attend  the  operation  of  those  principles,  by 
which  many  are  now  endeavoring  to  bring  the  church  upon  ex- 
clusive ground.  There  is  no  objection  to  immersion,  merely  as 
one  mode  of  purification,  to  all  who  desire  it.  But  to  immersion 
as  the  divinely  ordained  and  only  mode,  there  are  objections,  deep 
and  radical.  We  cannot  produce  unity  by  sanctioning  a  false 
principle  ;  our  Baptist  brethren  can,  by  coming  to  the  ground  of 
Christian  liberty.  The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  I  would  kindly, 
humbly,  affectionately,  yet  decidedly  come  is  this:  "Stand  fast 
in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  us  free,  and  be  not 
entangled  again  with  the  yoke  of  bondage." 

The  argument  is  now  closed.  I  intend  only  to  add  a  i'ew 
words  of  a  practical  kind,  as  it  relates  to  the  translation  of  the 
Bible,  the  unity  of  the  church,  and  Christian  communion. 


NOTE. 

The  reception  of  Dr.  Carson's  first  reply  to  me,  induced  me  to  change 
the  purpose  announced  at  the  close  of  the  preceding  chapter,  and  again  to 
reinvestigate  the  whole  subject.     The  result  is  contained  in  the  next  part. 


PART    III. 

FIRST     REPLY     TO     DR.     CARSON. 

CHAPTER    I. 

God  in  his  providence  seems  to  be  exciting  unusual  attention  to 
the  long  continued  debate  as  it  regards  the  mode  of  Baptism.  On 
this  subject,  two  opposing  systems  are  in  conflict.  One  based  on 
the  performance  of  a  specific  act — i.  e.  immersion — the  other  on 
indicating  an  effect,  i.  e.  purification.  Each  of  these  systems 
tends  to  results  peculiar  to  itself.  By  these  results  the  true  na- 
ture of  each  system  will  be  evolved,  and  in  consequence  of  them, 
its  soundness  will  be  tested.  Such  is  God's  mode  of  bringing 
false  systems  to  a  close. 

§  39.  Present  Position  of  the  Baptists. 

The  system  based  on  the  performance  of  a  specific  act,  is 
evolved.  Let  us  look  at  its  results,  as  seen  in  the  present  position 
of  its  advocates. 

The  denomination  of  Evangelical  Baptists  is  large,  universally 
diflfused,  and  very  active.  It  is  in  all  the  movements  of  the 
church,  a  constantly  operating  force.  Of  course  the  position  they 
assume  as  it  regards  other  denominations,  is  a  matter  of  no  small 
consequence.  They  have  it  in  their  power  universally  to  affect 
the  tranquillity  of  Zion.  We  shall  therefore  briefly  consider  the 
position  which  they  do  in  fact  assume.  This  can  easily  be 
inferred  by  carrying  out  logically  the  following  principles, — that 
baptism  is  essential  to  church  membership,  and  that  the  command 


118  PRESENT    POSITION    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  §39. 

to  baptize  is  a  command  to  immerse.    From  these  principles,  they 
infer, 

1.  That  all  other  denominations  are  unbaptized,  because  unim- 
mersed,  and  that  they  are  therefore  in  a  state  of  disobedience  to 
God. 

2.  That  other  denominations  cannot  be  recognised  and  treated 
by  them  as  members  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  because  unbaptized, 
and  are  therefore  to  be  excluded  on  this  ground,  from  communion 
with  them  at  the  table  of  the  Lord. 

3.  That  other  denominations  are  guilty  of  mistranslating  the 
word  of  God,  or  at  least  of  covering  up  its  sense  on  the  subject  of 
baptism. 

4.  That  to  the  Baptist  denomination  is  assigned  the  great  work 
of  giving  a  correct  translation  of  the  Bible  to  the  world,  and  of  re- 
storing the  Gospel  to  its  primitive  purity  and  simplicity. 

These  positions  are  not  with  them  mere  points  of  theory,  but 
have  been  of  late,  with  increasing  vigor  and  decision,  reduced  to 
practice.  They  have  also  assumed  a  tone  of  uncommon  decision 
and  boldness  in  announcing  their  principles,  as  if  their  correct- 
ness were  beyond  all  question.  Nay,  too  often  have  many  of 
them  spoken  with  contempt  and  ridicule,  not  to  say  insolence,  of 
those  who  hold  the  opposite  opinions,  as  if  they  were  holding  on 
to  exploded  errors,  in  face  of  all  the  learning  of  the  modern  world, 
and  even  against  their  own  better  knowledge. 

Prof  Eaton,  of  Hamilton  Baptist  Institute,  in  his  speech  before 
the  Baptist  Bible  Society,  at  their  anniversary  of  1840,  says. 
Report  p.  74 — "  The  translation"  of  the  Baptist  Missionaries  "  is 
so  undeniably  correct,"  that  its  incorrectness  could  not  be  "  pre- 
tended," without  committing  the  objector's  character  for  scholar- 
ship and  candor.  "  Who  are  they,  sir,"  said  he,  "  who  cavil 
about  the  plain  meaning  of  the  original  word  whose  translation  is 
so  offensive  ?  Are  they  the  Persons,  and  the  Campbells,  and  the 
Greenfields,  and  such  like  ?  No,  sir.  But  the  cavillers  are  men 
who,  whatever  may  be  their  standing  in  other  respects,  have  no 
reputation  as  linguists  and  philologists  to  lose.     There  really  can 


§  39.  PRESENT    POSITION    OF    THE    BAPTISTS.  119 

be  no  rational  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  sound  and  candid  Greek 
scholar,  about  the  evident  meaning  of  the  word  in  question.  I 
venture  to  say,  at  the  risk  of  the  little  reputation  for  Greek 
scholarship  which  I  possess,  tliat  there  are  no  words  of  plainer 
import  in  the  Bible.  The  profane  tampering  which  has  been 
applied  to  these  words,"  &c.  &c.  See  Hall's  Baptist  Errors,  p. 
39,  for  the  preceding  quotation — a  very  able  work. 

Mr.  Hinton,  after  an  argument  on  the  import  of  the  word 
^arn'ri^o),  and  a  professed  history  of  the  origin  and  progress  of 
pouring  and  sprinkling,  says,  p.  196,  197, — "  May  I  respect- 
fully ask  the  psedobaptist  who  reads  this  volume  (Episcopalian, 
Presbyterian,  Congregationalist,  or  Methodist),  1.  Whether  he 
has  not  been  kepi  in  ignorance  of  these  facts  ?  2.  Whether  those 
clergy  who  withhold  these  facts  from  their  flocks,  do  not  take 
upon  themselves  an  undue  and  dangerous  responsibility  ?  3. 
Whether  he  will  have  independence  enough  to  take  every 
adequate  means  to  ascertain  if  these  statements  can  be  denied  ? 
And  finally,  if  they  cannot  be  gainsayed,  whether  he  will  dare  to 
remain  unbaptized,  and  therefore  in  a  state  of  disobedience  to  the 
Kincr  of  kings?" 

On  the  28th  of  April,  1840,  The  Baptist  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  passed  the  following  resolution :  "  Resolved,  that 
by  the  fact  that  the  nations  of  the  earth  must  now  look  to  the  Baptist 
denomination  alone  for  faithful  translations  of  the  )vord  of  God,  a 
responsibility  is  imposed  upon  them,  demanding  for  its  full  dis- 
charge an  unwonted  degree  of  union,  of  devotion,  and  of  strenu- 
ous, persevering  effort  throughout  the  entire  body."  Moved  by 
Prof.  Eaton,  seconded  by  Rev.  H.  Malcom. 

In  their  Report,  this  Society  stigmatize  the  translations  of  all 
other  denominations,  as  "  versions  in  which  the  real  meaning  of 
words  ...  is  purposely  kept  out  of  sight,  so  that  Baptists 
cannot  circulate  faithful  versions  .  .  .  unless  they  print  them  at 
their  own  expense."  They  assert,  p.  45,  "  It  is  known  that  the 
British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  the  American  Bible 
Society,  have  virtually  combined  to  obscure  at  least  a  part  of 


120         INFERENCES  FROM  THE  OPPOSITE  SYSTEM.       §  40. 

the  divine  revelation,  and  that  these  Societies  continue  to  circulate 
versions  of  the  Bible,  unfaithful  at  least  so  far  as  the  subject  of 
Baptism  is  concerned." — Hall  on  Baptism,  pp.  27,  28. 

Again,  Prof.  Eaton  says.  Report,  p.  79,  "  Never,  sir,  was  there 
a  chord  struck  that  vibrated  simultaneously  through  so  many 
Baptist  hearts  from  one  extremity  of  the  land  to  the  other,  as 
when  it  was  announced  that  the  heathen  world  must  look  to  them 
ALONE /or  an  unveiled  view  of  the  glories  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ." 
"  A  deep  conviction  seized  the  minds  of  almost  the  whole  body, 
that  they  were  divinely  and  peculiarly  set  for  the  defence  and 
dissemination  of  the  Gospel  as  delivered  to  man  by  its  heavenly 
author.  A  new  zeal  in  their  Master's  cause,  and  unwonted 
kindlings  of  fraternal  love  glowed  in  their  hearts ;  and  an  at- 
tracting and  concentrating  movement,  reaching  to  the  utmost 
extremity  of  the  mass,  began  and  has  been  going  on  and  in- 
creasing in  power  ever  since." — Hall's  Baptist  Errors,  p.  38. 

More  facts  of  a  similar  kind  can  be  found  in  a  correspondence 
between  the  Rev.  J.  Davis  Gotch,  of  the  Baptist  denomination, 
and  the  Rev.  T.  Milner,  a  Congregational  minister,  in  which  the 
latter  declines  attending  the  celebration  of  the  first  half-century 
since  the  commencement  of  Baptist  missions,  and  assigns  as  a 
reason  the  ground  taken  by  the  Baptists  towards  other  denomina- 
tions. See  London  Congregational  Magazine,  and  the  New 
England  Puritan  for  August  18,  1842. 

Indeed,  their  whole  body  has  been  rallied  by  a  universal 
impulse,  as  if  on  the  eve  of  a  general  victory,  and  as  if  their 
triumph  was  destined  to  usher  in  the  glories  of  the  millennial  day. 

§  40.     Inferences  from  the  opposite  system. 

The  logical  consequences  of  the  other  system  remain  now  to 
be  stated.  These  can  easily  be  inferred  from  its  fundamental 
position,  THAT  there  is  no  command  to  dip  or  immerse  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  solely  a  command  to  purify,  in  the  name 
of  the  Trinity  ;   and  that  each  denomination  may  select  for 


§  40.        INFERENCES  FROM  THE  OPPOSITE  SYSTEM.         121 

itself  what  it  deems  the  most  decorous  and  appropriate  mode  of 
fulfilling  this  command.  This,  if  kindly  received,  is  a  conciliating 
view,  and  tends  to  unity  ;  for  it  gives  Christian  liberty  to  all.  So 
I  presented  it,  and  I  hoped  for  it  a  kind  and  a  candid  reception. 
My  hopes  have  been  disappointed.  Efforts  have  been  made  to 
suppress  it,  by  affected  contempt  of  the  view,  and  its  advocate. 
Or  it  has  been  rejected  with  scorn,  attended  by  uncalled  for  per- 
sonal attacks  upon  the  intellectual  and  religious  character  of  its 
advocate.  This  I  deeply  regret,  for  I  wrote  with  feelings  of 
great  kindness  towards  the  Baptist  denomination,  and  strong 
desires  for  unity  in  the  love  of  Christ.  But  perhaps  I  ought  not 
to  be  surprised.  If  the  view  I  advocate  is  correct,  close  com- 
munion must  die,  and  all  the  charges  of  Baptists  against  other 
denominations  must  be  retracted,  and  their  course  as  to  the 
translation  of  the  Bible,  and  the  Bible  Society,  retraced.  At  all 
events,  union  and  conciliation  they  reject ;  they  still  continue 
their  attack.     Hence  logic  must  have  its  course. 

Of  this  system,  the  logical  consequences  are  clear,  and  no  Chris- 
tian charity  calls  for  their  suppression.  I  announce  them  soberly, 
calmly,  and  yet  decidedly,  and  as  in  the  presence  of  a  holy  God. 

1.  That  other  denominations  are  not  unbaptized,  though  unim- 
mersed,  because  they  arc  purified, 

2.  They  are  not  substituting  human  forms  in  place  of  a  com- 
mandment of  God — nor  are  they  in  rebellion  against  God. 

3.  There  is  no  good  reason  to  exclude  them  from  the  table  of 
the  Lord — nor 

4.  Are  they  guilty  of  mistranslating  or  obscuring  the  word  of 
God. 

5.  The  Baptists  mistranslate  the  word  of  God — not  only  con- 
cealing its  meaning,  but  putting  in  place  of  it,  one  entirely  foreign 
to  the  mind  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

6.  They  are  not  divinely  set  apart  to  the  great  work  of  giving 
correct  translations  of  the  Bible  to  the  heathen  world ;  on  the  other 
hand,  they  are  the  only  denomination  who  are  combined  systema 
tically  to  mistranslate  it,  and  to  hide  its  meaning  from  the  world. 


122  TRANSLATION  OF  THP:  BIBLE.  §  41. 

7.  They  are  guilty  of  teaching  for  doctrines,  the  commandments 
of  men,  and  because  others  will  not  comply  with  uncommanded 
external  forms,  of  charging  them  with  rebellion  against  God,  and 
of  excluding  them  from  the  table  of  the  Lord. 

8.  For  the  sake  of  this  same  uncommanded  form,  they  have  di- 
vided the  Bible  Society,  and  do  still  divide  and  agitate  the  church 
of  God. 

If  the  position  on  which  this  system  rests  is  true,  it  needs  no 
labored  argument  to  show  that  these  things  are  so.  They  are  but 
its  logical  and  necessary  consequences.  As  such,  I  announce 
them. 

In  one  point,  however,  this  system  does  not  reverse  the  position 
of  our  Baptist  brethren.  It  does  not  pronounce  them  unbaptized, 
nor  exclude  them  from  the  table  of  the  Lord.  It  admits  that  im- 
mersion is  baptism,  not  indeed  because  it  is  immersion,  but  solely 
because  it  is  one  mode  of  purification. 

§  41.      Translatio7i  of  the  Bihle. 

Upon  the  question  of  translation,  however,  a  few  words  may 
be  needed.  I  remark,  then,  that  to  transfer  words  from  one  lan- 
guage to  another,  is  not  to  mistranslate,  but  simply  to  take  a  word 
from  the  stores  of  one  language,  and  by  it  to  enrich  those  of  an- 
other. The  sense  of  such  a  word  is  to  be  fixed,  as  is  the  sense  of 
all  other  words,  by  the  association  of  ideas.  For  example,  to  dip, 
is  of  Saxon  origin,  and  belongs  to  the  native  stores  of  our  language. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  word  immergo  did  not  belong  to  our  lan- 
guage, but  to  the  Latin.  At  length,  from  a  form  of  this  verb,  the 
word  immerse  was  transferred  to  our  language,  and  immersio  was 
transferred  as  immersion.  In  like  manner,  baptize  and  baptism 
have  been  transferred  from  the  Greek.  But  these  are  not  all. 
Characterize,  scandalize,  dec,  have  been  transferred  in  the  same 
way.  Thus,  also,  the  words,  the  Christ,  the  Messiah,  and  Jesus, 
have  been  transferred  from  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  meaning 
the   anointed  one,  and  the  Saviour.     Shall  a  clamor,  then,  be 


§  42.  COMMANDMENTS  OF  MEN.  123 

raised,  because  immersion,  Messiah,  Clirist,  and  Jesus,  have  not 
been  translated,  like  that  which  is  made  about  not  translating  bap- 
tize ?     And  shall  we  translate  scandalize  and  characterize  ? 

But  it  may  be  said  that  in  the  case  of  these  words  the  associa- 
tion of  ideas  has  done  its  work,  and  that  their  meaning  is  so  fixed 
that  they  have  become  a  part  of  our  language.  True,  and  what 
hinders  the  same  result  as  to  haptism  and  baptize  ?  Not  the  fact 
that  they  are  transferred  words,  but  that  a  controversy  exists  as 
to  their  meaning  in  the  original,  so  that  the  natural  operation  of 
the  association  of  ideas  has  been,  and  still  is,  interrupted.  Let 
the  controversy  cease,  let  all  think  correctly  as  to  the  import  of 
the  Greek  words,  and  baptize  and  baptism  will  soon  become  as 
significant  as  catechize  and  catechism,  or  exorcise  and  exorcism, 
or  even  as  immerse  and  immersion. 

All  will  know  that  baptism  means  a  sacred  purification  or 
CLEANSING,  and  that  baptize  means  to  purify  or  cleanse.  And 
there  are  certainly  advantages  in  not  translating,  but  in  trans- 
ferring this  word.  Sacred  purification  will  then  have,  in  all 
languages,  one  and  the  same  sacred  name.  This,  like  Jesus,  and 
Christ,  will  be  known  and  read  of  all  men,  in  all  languages,  as 
denoting  either  an  external  sacred  purification,  or  that  one  sacred 
purification  of  the  Spirit  which  it  symbolizes,  and  which  is  by  the 
apostle  associated  with  one  Lord  and  one  faith. 

But  if  the  word  (Saitri^u  is  to  be  translated  and  not  transferred, 
it  should  by  all  means  be  translated  purify  and  not  immerse. 
To  translate  it  immerse,  is  but  to  perpetuate  error  and  sectarian- 
ism, by  a  false  translation  of  the  word  of  God. 

§  42.     Commandments  of  Men. 

As  to  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men,  this  is 
plain,  that  if  God  has  commanded  only  the  genus,  no  one  has  a 
right  to  limit  the  command  to  the  species.  If  he  says,  go  preach, 
no  one  has  a  right  to  limit  us  to  one  specific  mode  of  going.  If 
he  says,  cultivate  the  earth,  no  one  has  a   right  to  limit  us  ex- 


124  STATE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  §  43. 

clusively  to  digging,  or  to  ploughing.  So  if  he  commands  "  jjwrz/?/," 
no  one  has  a  right  to  limit  us  to  immersion,  as  the  only  mode.  It 
is  not  indeed  wrong  to  immerse,  but  to  insist  on  this  as  the  only 
mode,  is  wrong.  And  to  yield  to  such  a  demand,  is  to  sanction  a 
groundless  usurpation  over  the  consciences  of  men.  This  is  our 
answer  to  the  inquiry  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  "  Why  not  join  us 
and  be  on  the  safe  side,  and  thus  unite  the  church  ?  for  you  all 
admit  that  immersion  is  baptism."  We  reply,  we  might  not  in 
certain  cases  object  to  immersion,  if  it  involved  no  concession  of 
principle  ;  but  if  it  does,  we  will  not  give  place  by  subjection,  no, 
not  for  an  hour,  that  the  truth  of  the  gospel  may  continue  with  us. 
All  who  come  to  spy  out  our  liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ 
Jesus,  that  they  may  bring  us  into  bondage,  we  shall  fearlessly 
resist,  relying  on  the  Spirit  of  God  for  his  guidance  and  aid. 
Such  are  the  opposing  systems  and  their  consequences. 

§  43.     State  of  the  Controversy.     Br.   Carson's  Reply. 

It  is  an  entire  anomaly  in  the  history  of  controversy,  that  con- 
sequences so  vast  should  depend  upon  the  meaning  of  a  single 
word,  yet  such  is  the  fact.  All  of  these  consequences  hinge  upon 
the  meaning  of  the  single  word  fSairri^cjj.  And  as  to  this  word, 
the  whole  question  turns  upon  the  simple  inquiry :  was  there  a 
transition  in  ^u'^n'^w  from  its  primary  sense  to  immerse,  to  the 
secondary  sense  to  purify,  irrespective  of  mode,  and  is  that  the 
sense  in  the  command  ? 

Now  the  possibility  of  such  a  transition  cannot  be  denied.  For, 
as  I  have  shown,  nothing  is  more  common  than  such  changes. 
And  of  the  fact  that  the  change  did  take  place,  I  have  alleged 
what  seems  to  me  unanswerable  proof. 

If,  therefore,  my  premises  cannot  be  overthrown,  the  conclu- 
sions above  stated  of  necessity  follow.  I  had  supposed  that  a 
position  so  serious  in  its  bearings,  would  be  at  once  and  severely 
scrutinized  in  this  country,  but  it  has  not  been.  A  short  time 
since,  however,  I  heard,  on  coming  from  the  west  to  the  east,  that 


§  43.  STATE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY.  125 

Dr.  Carson,  of  Edinburgh,  had  published  a  reply,  and  hoped 
soon  to  see  it  republished  in  this  country.  At  last,  I  read  in  the 
Christian  Watchman,  a  notice  taken  from  an  English  Baptist 
magazine,  stating  in  substance  that  Dr.  Carson,  the  celebrated 
Greek  scholar,  had  totally  annihilated  my  arguments.  That  they 
were  both  dead  and  buried,  and  that  no  one  dared  to  appear  in 
their  defence.  The  editor  of  the  Watchman  also  remarked  that 
this  might  be  necessary  in  England,  and  that  Dr.  Carson,  with  his 
vast  stores  of  learning,  was  just  the  man  to  do  it,  but  that  in  this 
country  it  was  needless.  My  pieces  are  very  harmless  here,  and 
would  not  probably  have  been  noticed  but  for  the  respectability  of 
the  periodical  in  which  they  were  published.  As,  therefore,  our 
American  Baptists  are,  in  the  judgment  of  this  editor  of  one  of 
their  leading  papers,  so  superior  in  intellectual  acumen  to  those  of 
Great  Britain,  I  concluded  that  Dr.  Carson's  reply  would  not  be 
republished  in  this  country  at  all,  and  after  vain  efforts  to  obtain 
a  copy  of  it,  I  at  last  was  obliged  to  send  for  it  across  the  Atlantic. 
I  did  not  see  it  till  I  had  finished  the  whole  preceding  discussion, 
and  hence  I  lost  the  advantage  of  certain  lessons  in  rhetoric  and 
logic,  which,  as  I  discover.  Dr.  Carson  prepared  expressly  for  my 
benefit. 

I  am  glad,  however,  to  receive  it  even  at  this  late  hour.  Dr. 
Carson  writes  evidently  under  great  excitement,  but  puts  forth  all 
his  energy  to  defend  his  positions.  And  in  reviewing  his  reply  we 
shall  be  called  to  try  the  solidity  of  the  foundation  on  which  my 
whole  argument  rests.  Dr.  Carson,  if  any  one,  can  destroy  them, 
and  if  he  fails,  his  cause  is  lost. 

As  Dr.  Carson's  reply  has  not  been  republished  here,  I  must 
needs  give  some  account  of  it  to  my  readers.  It  is  a  pamphlet  of 
74  pages,  devoted  entirely  to  the  examination  of  my  first  two 
numbers.  These,  it  seems,  were  republished  in  England  under 
a  mistaken  impression  that  the  discussion  was  completed,  and  Dr. 
Carson  answered  them  as  if  they  were  a  full  exhibition  of  all  the  evi- 
dence I  had  to  produce.  Hence,  he  answered  an  incomplete 
work  ;  and  yet  his  reply  considers  all  the  imnciplcs  involved  in  a 


126  DR.  Carson's  rhetoric,     its  influence.  §  44. 

thorough  discussion  of  the  subject.  It  may  be  viewed  in  two 
lights — as  a  specimen  of  Rhetoric,  or  of  logic. — In  both  lights  I 
shall  consider  it. 

Much  of  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  logic  at  all.  All  this  I  shall 
put  under  the  head  of  rhetoric.  And,  as  this  is  the  most  striking 
part  of  the  performance,  and  that  in  which  its  greatest  power  lies, 
I  think  it  well  to  bestow  on  it  particular  attention. 

§  44.     Dr.   Carson's  Rhetoric.     Its  Influence. 

In  this  part  of  the  work,  Dr.  Carson  makes  a  very  strong  ap- 
peal for  sympathy  to  his  readers,  in  the  unparalleled  trials  in 
which  my  work  has  involved  him. 

His  own  view  of  the  case  is  this. 

His  gentle  spirit  shrinks  from  the  use  of  severe  language  towards 
others,  even  in  exposing  their  errors,  but  an  imperious  sense  of 
duty  urges  him  on  to  discharge  the  painful  task.  "  I  have  no 
wish,"  he  says,  "to  be  severe,"  p.  437.  "  It  is  painful  for  me 
to  use  the  knife  so  freely  ;  but  I  must,  for  the  sake  of  the  Chris- 
tian public,  find  out  the  disease  under  which  my  patient  labors. 
It  is  better  that  one  delinquent  should  suffer,  than  that  a  multitude 
should  be  drawn  into  error  by  his  example,"  p.  435.  "  It  grieves 
me  to  be  obliged  to  write  in  this  manner,  but  I  cannot  avoid  it," 
p.  469.  The  passages,  to  utter  which,  caused  such  grief  to  his 
gentle  spirit,  are  these  : 

"  Ignorant  persons,  in  reading  Mr.  Beecher's  work,  will  think 
that  he  is  a  deep  philosopher,  and  that  he  is  a  profound  philologist. 
But  the  smallest  degree  of  perspicacity  will  enable  any  one  to  see 
that  his  philosophy  is  very  shallow  sophistry.  No  man  ought 
with  impunity  to  be  allowed  to  trifle  so  egregiously  with  the  dis- 
ciples of  Christ,  and  with  the  awful  commandments  of  the  eternal 
Jehovah,  p.  437."  "  Is  it  not  astonishing  that  gentlemen  in  emi- 
nent situations,  will  risk  the  character  of  their  understanding,  by 
pouring  forth  such  crudities  ?"  p.  435.  "  The  author's  philoso- 
phy is  false,  absurdly  and  extravagantly  false.     He  gives  us  eight 


5>  44.  DR.  Carson's  rhetoric,     its  influence.  127 

lines  of  pliilosophy.  I  will  give  a  premium  to  any  one  who  will 
produce  me  a  greater  quantity  of  absurdity  in  the  same  compass, 
under  the  appearance  of  vvisdom.  The  only  merit  this  nonsense 
can  claim,  is,  that  it  is  original  nonsense,"  p.  469.  To  be  com- 
pelled to  utter  such  language  as  this,  concerning  a  Christian  bro- 
ther, must  indeed  be  painful  to  a  tender  spirit,  like  Dr.  Carson, 
especially,  as  it  is  so  liable  to  be  misunderstood  and  ascribed  to  an 
entirely  different  frame  of  mind — for  it  is  not  obviously  and  upon 
the  surface,  the  language  of  grief.  And  if  it  is  so  painful  to  be 
compelled  to  utter  a  liltle  of  such  language,  what  must  be  the  suf- 
fering involved  in  the  necessity  of  using  it  almost  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end  of  a  pamphlet  of  74  pages ;  especially  as  he  i^ 
called  to  the  painful  duty  of  charging  upon  a  Christian  brother, 
or  upon  his  opinions,  not  only  folly,  stupidity,  and  nonsense,  but 
also  dishonesty,  obstinacy,  fanaticism,  heresy,  infidelhy,  and 
blasphemy  '?  Indeed,  there  are  cases  in  which,  according  to  his 
own  account,  his  trials  exceed  in  severity  those  of  the  patriarch 
.Tob,  and  even  exhaust  his  patience,  great  as  it  is.  "  It  requires," 
says  he,  "  more  than  tlie  patience  of  Job,  to  be  able  to  mention 
such  an  argument  without  expressing  strong  feelings,"  p.  434. 
"Am  I  to  war  eternally  against  nonsense?"  p.  438.  "I  am 
weary  with  replying  to  childish  trifling,"  p.  463.  "  It  is  sick- 
ening to  be  obliged  to  notice  such  arguments,"  p.  464. 

His  trials,  indeed,  must  be  severe,  especially  when  we  consider 
how  far  he  is  removed  from  all  such  intellectual  and  moral 
defects.  I  had  spoken  of  a  certain  mode  of  reasoning,  and  said, 
"  It  assumes  a  violent  improbability  of  the  meaning  in  question, 
and  resorts  to  all  manner  of  shifts  to  prove  the  possibility  of  im- 
mersion, as  though  that  were  all  that  the  case  required."  This 
is  quite  too  much  for  Dr.  Carson.  "  What  shall  I  say  of  this  ?" 
lie  exclaims.  "  Is  it  calumny,  or  is  it  want  of  perspicacity  ? 
Assume  f  I  assume  nothing,  Mr.  President  Beecher,  but  self- 
evident  truth.  My  reasoning  does  not  rest  at  all  on  assump- 
tions. .  .  .  All  manner  of  shifts  !  I  repel  the  charge  with  indigna- 
tion.    I  never  used  a  slufi  in  all  the  controversy  I  ever  wrote," 


128  DR.  CARSON'S  RHETORIC.       ITS  INFLUENCE.  ^  '^^' 

p.  454.  Again  :  "  I  have  no  theory  to  support.  I  never  use 
theories  in  ascertaining  the  truths  and  the  ordinances  of  Christ. 
I  interpret  by  the  laws  of  language,"  p.  445.  "  I  never  press  an 
argument  a  hair's  breadth  further  than  it  can  go."  "  Fear  of  the 
result  never  in  a  single  instance  prevented  me  from  admitting  a 
sound  argument.  I  do  not  fear  the  result ;  for  truth  is  my  object 
wherever  it  may  lie,"  p.  432.  On  all  these  points,  Dr.  Carson  is 
no  doubt  a  competent  and  an  impartial  judge  ;  and  if  so,  it  must 
indeed  be  an  intolerable  trial  to  be  called  on  to  deal  with  one  who 
is  "  the  dupe  of  his  own  sophistry,  and  that  a  sophistry  childishly 
weak,"  p.  466,  and  whose  mode  of  reasoning  he  cannot  dignify 
with  any  other  designation  than  that  of  perverse  cavilling,  p.  459. 
In  reasoning  with  whom,  he  is  called  on  to  put  obstinacy  to  the 
blush,  and  to  overwhelm  it  with  confusion,  p.  456.  Who  proves 
himself  ignorant  of  one  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  controversy, 
p.  451.  Who  gives  the  lie  to  the  inspired  narrator,  p.  450. 
Whose  artifice  is  just  that  of  the  Socinians,  and  a  dishonest  and 
uncandid  way  of  escaping,  p.  449.  Whose  rhetoric  is  Gothic 
rhetoric,  p.  448.  Who  has  not  a  soul  for  philological  discussion, 
p.  441.  AVho  is  emboldened  by  his  excessive  deficiency  in  per- 
spicuity,* p.  441.  Who  uses  resources  of  which  no  sound  philo- 
loo-ist  would  think  of  availing  himself,  p.  440.  Whose  argument 
proceeds  on  an  amazing  v/ant  of  discrimination,  p.  439.  Whose 
cavilling  is  unworthy  of  a  candid  mind  and  a  sound  understand- 
ing, p.  438 ;  than  whose  arguments  nothing  can  be  more  ex- 
travagantly idle,  p.  438.  Whose  arguments  and  objections  are 
mere  trifling,  p.  436.  In  whose  ideas  there  is  great  confusion, 
p.  430.  Whose  reasoning  is  to  him  a  perfect  astonishment,  so 
that  lie  has  greater  difficulty  in  conceiving  how  it  can  have 
force  on  any  mind,  tlian  he  has  in  refuting  it,  p.  435  ;  and,  in 
fine,  whose  argument  manifests  such  a  want  of  discrimination 
and  such  a  confusion  of  things  which  differ,  that  the  mind  on  which 
it  has  force,  must  be  essentially  deficient  in  those  powers  that 
qualify  for  the  discussion  of  critical  questions,  p.  434. 

*  In  the  last  ediiion  "  perspicacity." 


§  44.  DK.  Carson's  rhetoric,     its  influence.  129 

Dr.  Carson,  indeed,  being  excessively  good-natured,  p.  453, 
has  undertaken  to  give  me  lessons  in  rh»toric  and  logic,  pp.  434 
and  471,  and  is  encouraged  to  think  that  he  has  forced  one  of 
his  distinctions  into  my  head,  p.  471.*  But  shortly  after  he  seems 
discouraged  again,  and  exclaims  :  "  Will!'\  (i.  e.  shall)  I  never  be 
able  to  force  this  into  the  mind  of  my  antagonist  ?  If  he  would 
allow  himself  to  perceive  this  distinction  he  would  be  delivered 
from  much  false  reasoning.  I  will  then  try  to  make  the  thing 
plain  to  every  child,"  p.  471.  Surely  this  is  exemplary  patience 
and  condescension. 

Dr.  Carson  also  seems  to  be  distressed  with  a  strange  appre- 
hension that,  after  all,  my  reasonings  will  affect  the  public 
mind  extensively.  They  are  indeed  folly  to  him,  but  all  do  not 
possess  his  "  perspicacity."  "  Careless  readers  will  imagine 
that  there  is  wonderful  acuteness  in  Mr.  Beecher's  observa- 
tions," p.  455.  "  Half  learned  people  will  think  that  this  ac- 
count of  the  phenomenon  is  an  unparalleled  effort  of  philosophy, 
and  thousands  will  rely  on  it  who  cannot  pretjend  to  fathom  it," 
p.  469.  It  must  be  painful  to  Dr.  Carson  to  have  so  low  a  view 
of  the  capacities  of  other  minds  in  comparison  with  his  own,  for 
he  says,  that  "  the  smallest  degree  of  perspicacity  will  enable 
any  one  to  see  that  his  (my)  philosophy  is  very  shallow  sophis- 
try," p.  437. 

However,  out  of  compassion  for  the  ignorant  and  those  that 
are  out  of  the  way,  he  engages  manfully  in  the  work  of  exposing 
my  sophistry,  and,  according  to  his  own  account,  with  very 
gratifying  results.  His  grief  at  the  necessity  of  dissecting  me 
has  passed  away,  and  in  rapture  he  exclaims :  "  I  have  now 
examined  Mr.  Beecher's  arguments,  and  there  is  not  a  shadow  of 
evidence  that  the  word  baptism  signifies  purification.  I  have  met 
everything  that  has  a  shadow  even  of  plausibility,  and  completely 
dissected  my  antagonist.     Am  I  not  now  entitled  to  send  purify  to 


*  "  Made  it  clear  to  my  opponent,"  in  2d  Edition, 
t"  Shall,"  2d  Edition. 

6* 


130  DR.  carson's  rhetoric,     its  influence.  §^,44. 

the  museum  as  a  lusus  naturse,  to  be  placed  by  the  side  of  its 
brother  pop  ?''  P.  475.  • 

It  would  be  cruel  indeed  to  deny  lo  Dr.  Carson  this  small  con- 
solation as  a  reward  for  all  his  sufferings  and  labors.  But  I  greatly 
fear  that  new  conflicts  await  him  before  he  can  wear  undisturbed 
the  victor's  crown.     Such  is  Dr.  Carson's  rhetoric. 

Let  us  now  briefly  consider  its  influence.  On  a  certain  class 
of  minds  it  will  produce  revulsion  and  disgust.  Can  that  be  a 
true  cause,  they  will  exclaim,  that  needs  to  be  defended  by  such 
weapons  ?  Are  these  the  teachings  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  Is 
this  the  meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ  ?  I  will  do  the  honor 
to  my  Baptist  Brethren  to  believe  that  there  are  many,  very  many 
of  them,  who  can  feel  no  sympathy  in  such  things.  Their  own 
spirit,  their  own  style  of  writing,  forbids  the  idea.  Nothing  of 
this  kind  have  I  ever  seen  in  the  writings  of  Professor  Ripley,  or 
Professor  Chase,  or  President  Sears.  I  do  not,  indeed,  agree  with 
them  in  opinion.  But  in  any  discussion  with  them  I  should  con- 
fidently expect  to  find  in  them  the  honor  and  magnanimity  of 
gentlemen,  and  the  meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ ;  and  I  re- 
joice to  believe  that  those  of  the  Baptists  who  sympathize  with 
such  men  as  these,  are  not  few,  and  that  their  influence  is  not 
small ;  and  until  they  disavow  it,  I  will  do  them  the  honor  to  be- 
lieve that  their  deep  dislike  of  the  spirit  of  Dr.  Carson's  reply  is 
the  real  reason  that  it  was  not  republished  in  this  country.  When 
I  hear  them  state  that  they  approve  the  spirit  of  that  work  I  will 
believe  that  they  do,  but  never  till  then. 

But  the  moral  effects  of  Dr.  Carson's  reply,  and  of  all  his 
writings  that  I  have  seen,  on  another  class  of  minds,  I  do  fear. 
Novices,  easily  puffed  up  with  pride,  and  predisposed  to  arrogant 
assumptions  of  superior  intellectual  power,  and  to  contempt  of 
their  opponents,  and  all  violent  and  heated  partisans,  will  find 
Dr.  Carson's  rhetoric  exactly  to  their  taste.  To  use  it  requires 
no  meekness,  no  forbearance,  no  humility,  no  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  carnal  mind  wlW  readily  receive  Dr.  Carson's  seed 
and   bring  forth  an  abundant  crop.     And  partisan  Christians,  in 


§  44.  DR.  Carson's  rhetoric,     its  influence.  13l 

whom  the  flesh  is  strong  and  the  spirit  weak,  will  come  under  its 
full  power.  Nor  is  this  power  small.  It  may  be  seen  at  this 
hour,  in  the  style  of  a  certain  class  of  Baptist  writers,  in  all  parts 
of  our  land.  There  is  in  them  a  lofty  tone,  and  a  spirit  of  con- 
temptuous invective,  and  of  fierce  attack,  that  distinctly  character- 
ize the  Carsonian  scliool ;  and  even  in  Christian  newspapers  we 
read  of  scalping  their  antagonists.  This  to  be  sure  is  an  im- 
provement on  Dr.  Carson's  favorite  figure  of  dissection,  but  the 
father  of  such  a  school  must  not  be  surprised  if  his  cliildren  excel 
him :  for  the  field  opened  is  boundless  ;  and  such  contemptuous 
expressions  as  "  baby  sprinklers,"  &c.,  will  soon  not  be  deemed 
sufficiently  spirited  and  energetic  to  meet  the  exigencies  of  the 
case,  and  each  new  combatant  v.'ill  resoi't  to  the  boundless  stores  of 
the  Carsonian  school. 

If  this  were  the  first  instance  in  which  Dr.  Carson  had  dealt 
in  this  style  of  rhetoric,  I  should  regard  it  less  ;  but  it  is  not.  It 
pervades  all  his  writings  that  I  have  seen.  Soys  an  English 
author  (Andrew  Carmichael),  "If  they  have  not  wholly  and  to 
a  point  embraced  his  views,  they  are  paradoxical,  foolish,  ar- 
rogant, untaught,  impious,  wicked,  silly,  presumptuous  Protestant 
theologians ;  supporters  of  a  very  unholy  cause  ;  crude  theorists, 
Pharisees  and  blasphemers.  Yet,  the  person  who  can  heap  these 
epithets  upon  others,  can  venture  to  make  this  acknowledgment 
of  himself : — My  itmy  is  to  endeavor  to  find  what  the  Scriptures  say, 
and  to  this  I  make  every  human  dogma  to  bend.  I  will  not 
allow  philosophy  herself  to  prate  on  the  things  of  God."  If  Dr. 
Carson  should  plead  that  he  was  writing  against  Unitarianism,  or 
loose  views  of  inspiration,  as  his  justification,  I  have  only  to  ask  : 
When  was  not  the  cloak  of  zeal  for  God  and  the  truth,  thrown 
over  a  bad  spirit  ?  This  is  no  way  to  check  error.  It  will  con- 
firm twenty  Unitarians  or  sceptics,  where  it  convinces  one.  For 
they  will  ask  :  Can  that  be  the  truth  that  breeds  such  a  spirit  ? 

Nor  can  a»  y  denomination  long  tolerate  such  a  spirit  in  its 
writers  with  impunity.  It  may  assume  the  form  of  zeal  for  God 
and  the  truth.     It  may  delude  multitudes  with  the  idea  that  they 


132  DR.  Carson's  logic,     preliminary  remarks.         §  45. 

are  especially  designated  by  God  for  the  great  work  of  defendin' 
the  gospel.  But  this  fire  is  not  from  the  altar  of  God.  It  i 
strange  fire.  And  let  those  who  offer  it  take  heed,  lest  fire  go  out 
from  the  Lord  and  devour  them.  And  if  the  leaders  of  the 
Baptist  denomination  in  this  country,  have  any  regard  to  their 
own  moral  soundness,  let  them  stand  between  the  living  and  the 
dead,  and  pray  that  the  plague  may  be  stayed  ;  and  everywhere 
meet  a  spirit  so  unholy,  with  stern  and  emphatic  rebuke.  It  may 
be  of  great  use  in  rallying  a  party  for  a  partisan  warfare.  It 
may  for  a  time  augment  sectarian  power.  But  it  is  no  prepara- 
tion for  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  no  preparation  for 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  fire. 

§  45.     Dr.  CarsoTi's  Logic.     Preliminary  Remarks. 

We  have  considered  Dr.  Carson's  rhetoric.  Let  us  now  look 
at  his  logic.  In  doing  this  I  meet  with  two  embarrassments  :  1. 
His  work  has  not  been  republished  in  this  country.  Hence  1 
shall  direct  my  attention  at  present  mainly  to  principles,  as  my 
readers  can  better  comprehend  these  than  details.*  2.  I  have 
already  virtually  answered  nearly  all  of  it  in  my  last  two  num. 
bers,  though  not  having  seen  the  work  itself,  I  did  not  aim  to 
answer  it,  and  hence  the  application  of  the  various  parts  of  my 
discussion  to  Dr.  Carson's  positions  may  need  to  be  pointed  out. 
But  as  I  have  not  room  to  attempt  this,  I  shall  trust  to  the  intel- 
ligence of  my  readers  to  do  that  v/ork. 

All  of  Dr.  Carson's  reply  may  be  considered  as  relating  either 
1,  To  principles;  or,  2,  To  fundamental  arguments;  or,  3,  To 
subordinate  points ;  the  truth  or  fiilsehood  of  which  is  of  some 
consequence,  but  not  essential  to  the  main  question.  Dr.  Carson 
seems  to  labor  very  hard  to  accumulate  upon  me  errors  of  all  sorts, 
for  the  purpose,  it  would  seem,  of  destroying  my  reputation  as  a 
scholar,  by  repeated  charges  of  fully,  stupidity,  nonsense,  &c.  Often 
the  errors  charged  are  upon  minute  points,  not  at  all  essential  in 

*  It  has  since  been  republished. 


§  46.  DR.  carson's  system,  and  canons.  133 

the  decision  of  the  main  question.  But  they  give  him  a  fine  op- 
portunity of  setting  forth  my  amazing  want  of  perspicacity. 
Such  charges  of  error  are  a  kind  of  logical  mosquitoes.  They 
have  a  sting  ;  they  irritate  ;  but  they  have  no  fatal  power  ;  and 
are  so  numerous  and  minute  that  there  is  no  time  to  pursue  them, 
and  little  is  really  gained  by  their  destruction.  In  the  refutation 
of  such  charges,  I  shall  not  waste  the  time  of  my  readers.  If  the 
main  points  are  decided  in  my  favor,  they  will  die  a  natural 
death.  I  shall  therefore  first  consider  the  question  of  principle, 
and  then  look  at  the  fundamental  arguments  in  the  case. 

Careful  reasoners  are  wont  to  examine  principles,  and  state 
definitions  clearly  at  the  outset.  Dr.  Carson  ought  to  have  done 
this.  I  stated  clearly  and  fully  my  principles  at  the  outset, 
presented  definitely  the  point  to  be  proved,  and  the  nature  of  the 
proof  required.  Does  Dr.  Carson  carefully  examine  this  part  of 
my  argument  ?  Not  at  all.  He  merely  alludes  to  it  for  the  sake 
of  saying  that  he  has  no  objection  to  much  of  it,  and  that  I  bor- 
rowed all  the  truth  of  it  from  him  ;  and  then  passes  on  to  his 
attack  upon  my  examples.  Does  he  anywhere  fairly  and  fully 
meet  and  discuss  my  principles  ?  Not  at  all.  Let  me  then  begin 
by  considering  both  his  principles  and  mine. 

§  46.     Br.  Carson^ s  System,  and  Canons. 

I  will  therefore  now  endeavor  to  do  what  Dr.  Carson  has  no- 
where done,  to  collect  the  scattered  fragments  of  his  system,  and 
to  present  them  in  one  view  ;  for,  above  all  things,  it  is  essential 
to  have  clear  views  of  the  points  actually  in  debate.  Dr.  Car- 
son's system  then  involves  four  parts. 

1.  To  establish  clearly  that  (Sa-Ttri^iA)  actually  has  the  sense 
immerse  in  many  instances.  2.  To  assume  a  canon  of  proof  as 
to  a  secondary  sense.  3.  To  provide  a  set  of  principles  for 
testing  all  alleged  secondary  senses,  to  see  if  they  cannot  possi- 
bly be  reduced  to  the  primary  sense.  4.  If  it  is  possible,  then  to 
overrule  all  probabilities  of  a  secondary  sense,  by  what  he  calls  the 


134  DR.  CARSON's  system,  Ai\D  CANONS.  §  46. 

testimony  of  the  word  /Sa';rTi'^w,  of  which  the  primary  sense  has 
been  established.  With  the  resuhs  of  this  process  he  is  remark- 
ably well  satisfied.  In  his  preface,  he  says,  "  My  dissertation  on 
the  import  of  the  word  f^aTrri^c^  I  submit  with  confidence  to  the 
truly  learned.  If  I  have  not  settled  that  controversy,  there  is  not 
truth  in  axioms.^''  Dr.  Carson  has  chosen  to  disregard  the  advice 
of  an  ancient  king :  "  Let  not  him  that  girdeth  on  his  harness, 
boast  himself  as  he  that  putteth  it  off."  Whether  he  has  done 
wisely  in  so  doing,  the  result  will  show.  Let  us  examine  his 
process  a  little  more  in  detail. 

In  establishing  the  first  point.  Dr.  Carson  has  laid  out  much 
needless  labor.  No  one,  so  far  as  I  know,  ever  denied  it.  Yet 
Dr.  Carson,  in  his  work  on  baptism,  has  accumulated  passage  on 
passage,  as  if  the  whole  world  denied  that  (BairTi^o  ever  means  to 
immerse,  till  he  thinks  his  position  impregnable.  Having  thus 
firmly  established  what  no  one  denies.  Dr.  Carson  next  lays  down 
his  canon  as  to  proving  a  secondary  sense.  P.  72.  "  I  will  here 
reduce  my  observations  on  this  point  to  the  form  of  a  canon. 
When  a  thing  is  proved  by  sufficient  evidence,  no  objection  from 
difficulties  can  be  admitted  as  decisive,  except  they  involve  an 
impossibility."  The  "  thing"  in  this  case  is  of  course  the  primary 
sense  of  jSaTrj^w.  For  though  the  canon  is  general  in  form,  yet 
it  is  made  for  a  specific  case.  But  the  canon  in  its  general  form 
looks  plausible,  because  it  includes  unlike  cases,  and  is  true  of 
some,  and  not  of  others.  If  a  particular  fact  is  proved  by  sufficient 
evidence,  as  for  example,  the  being  of  a  God,  or  the  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures,  we  are  not  to  reject  that  fad  on  account  of  dif- 
ficulties. So  if  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  a  particular  passage  is 
fairly  proved,  we  are  not  to  reject  it  in  that  passage,  because  of 
difficulties.  But  proof  of  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  one  passage, 
is  not  of  course  proof  of  its  meaning  in  another  ;  because  the 
meanings  of  all  words  are  liable  to  change.  Now,  in  all  places 
where  the  meaning  immerse  has  been  proved  by  Dr.  Carson  to 
belong  to  (Saii^ri^u,  I  do  not  deny  that  it  so  belongs.  But  this 
is  not  proof  of  its  meaning  in   all  other  cases.     Its  meaning  in 


§  46.  DR.  cakson's  system,  and  canons.  135 

each  case  must  be  decided  for  itself.  Dr.  Carson's  canon  then, 
so  far  as  it  applies  to  the  case  in  hand,  is  merely  this  :  where  one 
meaning  of  a  word  hps  been  proved  in  certain  cases,  no  dif- 
ficulties can  be  admitted  as  decisive  against  retaining  it  in  other 
cases,  unless  they  involve  an  impossibility.  Flere  it  is  then,  in  all 
its  nakedness.  He  attempts,  indeed,  to  put  this  alongside  of  the 
impropriety  of  rejecting  proof  of  the  being  of  a  God,  and  the  in- 
spiration of  the  Scriptures  on  the  ground  of  difficulties.  But  who 
cannot  see  that  the  cases  are  totally  unlike  ?  If  we  admit  a  new 
meaning  to  the  word  (3uitTi<^(jj,  on  the  ground  of  difficulties,  we 
do  not  reject  the  old  meaning  in  cases  where  it  has  been  proved 
to  exist ;  we  merely  prove  that  in  other  cases  another  meaning  co- 
exists with  it.  If,  on  the  ground  of  difficulties,  we  reject  the 
being  of  a  God,  or  the  inspiration  of  Scriptures,  we  reject  the 
identical  thing  which  we  had  before  proved  true.  Dr.  Carson's 
canon  then  is  in  brief  this  :  "  We  cannot  admit  a  secondary  sense 
of  ^a-TrTi'^w,  unless  we  can  prove  that  the  primary  sense  is  im- 
possible," Carson,  p.  493,  and  it  is  in  this  form  that  he  every- 
where reduces  it  to  practice.  Dr.  Carson  next  proceeds  to  lay 
down  canons  of  trial  by  which  to  test  alleged  secondary  senses, 
in  order  to  discover  whether  the  impossibility  of  the  primary 
sense  which  he  claims  as  essential,  actually  exists.  Of  these  the 
most  important  are  these : 

1.  P.  90,  "  I  assert  that  in  no  language  under  heaven  can  one 
word  designate  two  modes;"  e.  g.  (BaitTU)  cannot  signify  both  dip 
and  sprinkle.  This  he  avowedly  asserts,  "  without  reference  to 
the  practice  of  language,  on  the  authority  of  self-evident  truth." 
Another  form  in  which  he  states  it  is  this :  "  A  word  that  applies 
to  two  modes  can  designate  neither.  The  same  word  cannot  ex- 
press different  modes,  though  a  word  not  significant  of  mode  may 
apply  to  all  modes  ;"  e.  g.  wash,  stain,  wet,  purify,  are  eflTects 
which  may  be  produced  by  pouring,  dipping,  or  sprinkling. 
"  But  modes  are  essentially  different  from  each  other,  and  can 
have  nothing  in  common.  One  word  then  caniK)t  possibly  dis- 
tinguish them.     The  name  of  a  mode  is  the  word  which  expresses 


1*36  DR.  carsoim's  system,  aind  canons.  §,46. 

it,  as  distinguished  from  other  modes.  But  it  is  impossible  for 
the  same  word  to  express  the  distinction  of  two  modes.  It  might 
more  reasonably  be  supposed,  that  the  word  black  may  also  be 
employed  to  signify  the  idea  denoted  by  white,  as  well  as  the  idea 
which  it  is  employed  to  designate,  because  black  and  white  admit 
of  degrees:  but  there  are  no  degrees  in  mode,"  p.  90.  All  this 
is  avowedly  a  priori  reasoning,  not  deduced  from  facts,  but  rest- 
ing on  the  assumption  that  it  is  impossible  so  to  use  a  word,  or  at 
least  absurd,  and  therefore  no  word  is  in  fact  so  used.  If  this  is 
so,  it  is  easy  to  compel  the  disciples  of  Dr.  Carson  to  renounce 
immersion  as  the  sense  of  baptism. 

Perfundo  is  used,  beyond  all  doubt,  to  denote  not  only  pouring 
but  sprinkling.  In  the  4th  book  of  the  Georgics,  line  384,  Gyrene 
is  represented  as  thrice  sprinkling  the  burning  fire  with  liquid 
nectar,  and  thus  causing  it  thrice  to  blaze  on  high.  "  Ter  liquido 
ardentem  per/wfZ//  Nectare  Vestam."  The  sprinkling  of  dust  on 
the  head  of  old  Latinus  is  denoted  by  a  participle  of  the  same 
verb,  ^n.  xii.  611.  "Ganitiem  immundo  perfusam  pulvere." 
Mn.  X.  520,  it  is  used  to  denote  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
slain  captives  on  the  funeral  pile  of  Pallas.  "  Perfundat  sanguine 
flammas."  Hence  to  sprinkle  is  given  by  Adams,  Gesner,  Ains- 
worth,  Facciolatus  and  Forcellinus,  and  Leverett,  as  one  of  its 
senses.  It  is  also  the  word  used  to  denote  clinic  baptism  by 
sprinkling. 

And  yet  Lactantius  defines  baptism  by  this  word — Institutes, 
book  iv.  chap.  xv.  He  states  that  Ghrist  was  purified  (tinctus) 
in  the  river  Jordan,  to  remove  not  his  own  sins  but  those  of  human 
nature,  so  that  as  he  had  saved  the  Jews,  by  being  circumcised, 
he  might  save  tlie  Gentiles  by  baptism,  that  is,  ly  the  s-prinlding 
of  purifying  water.  "  Sic  ctiam  gentes  haptismo,  id  est,  purifici 
roris  perfitsione  salvaret."  Now  even  if  Dr.  Garson's  disciples 
were  disposed  to  reject  the  sense  to  sprinkle  in  the  passages  first 
quoted,  and  to  insist  on  the  sense  to  pour  around,  or  throuirh,  or 
over,  still  it  will  not  help  the  matter.  For  the  mode  to  pour  is  as 
unlike  immersion  as  the  mode  to  sprinkle. 


§  46.  DR.  Carson's  system,  and  canons.  137 

Hence  "  perfusione"  cannot  be  rendered  by  immersion,  Dr.  Car- 
son being  judge,  and  baptism  is  either  sprinkling  or  pouring  by 
the  express  definition  of  Lactantius. 

I  say  this  is  so,  reasoning  on  Dr.  Carson's  canon.  But  the 
fact  is,  that  perfundo  is  used  to  denote  actions  involving  three 
unlike  modes,  viz.  sprinkling,  pouring,  and  immersion. 

Its  use  to  denote  sprinkling  I  have  illustrated  where  dust  is 
sprinkled  on  the  head,  or  wine  or  blood  on  the  fire. 

Horace  uses  it  to  denote  pouring  cold  water  on  a  man  by  an 
angry  woman  who  has  refused  him  entrance  at  the  door.  Sat. 
ii.  7,  91.  "  Repulsum  foribus  perfundit  gelida."  But  when  a 
horse  immerses  himself  in  a  river,  or  when  shepherds  immerse 
their  sheep  to  wash  them,  the  same  word  is  used. 

"  Fluviis  perfundunt  pecus  magistri,"  Virg.  Gcorg.  iii.  446. 
"  Equus  assuetus  aquce  perfundi  flumine  noto,"  Mn.  xi.  495.  In 
this  last  use,  the  water  is  neither  poured  nor  sprinkled.  The  ob- 
ject to  which  the  word  is  applied  is  immersed  in  the  water. 

I  am  aware  that  such  passages  may  be  translated  by  intro- 
ducing an  effect  of  immersion,  as  for  example  washing,  or 
thoroughly  wetting.  Yet  even  this  would  be  no  relief  to  the 
disciples  of  Dr.  Carson,  for  unless  they  can  make  out  immersion 
as  a  sense  of  "  perfusione,"  his  theory  as  to  the  meaning  of  bap- 
tism is  lost,  by  the  express  definition  of  Lactantius.  If  they  can 
make  out  that  sense  by  the  aid  of  passages  similar  to  those  last 
quoted,  then  his  canon  is  lost.     In  fact  both  are  lost,  at  any  rate. 

For  the  principle  on  which  this  a  priori  canon  is  based  is  false. 
It  assumes  that  the  same  word  cannot  be  used  to  designate  things 
utterly  unlike  ;  "  modes,"  he  says,  "  are  essentially  different 
from  each  other,  and  can  have  nothing  in  common :  one  word 
then  cannot  possibly  distinguish  them."  And  is  not  rapid  motion 
essentially  different  from  absolute  rest  ?  And  do  w^e  not  say  to 
denote  absolute  immobility,  "he  stood  like  a  post?"  And  yet 
Job  says,  "  My  days  are  sicifter  than  a  post.''  Job  ix.  25.  And 
does  not  Jeremiah  say  "one  post  shall  run  to  meet  another?" 
Jer.  li.  31.     Shall  we  then  say  that  one  word  cannot  distinguisii 


138  DR.  Carson's  system,  and  canons.  §  46, 

ideas  not  only  so  unlike,  but  so  directly  opposite,  and  therefore 
the  word  post  is  not  so  used  ? 

Again,  the  Latin  word  "  inducere"  is  used  to  denote  the  mark- 
ing down,  or  recording  of  items  in  an  account ;  "  inducere  pecu- 
niam  in  rationem,"  to  charge  money  in  an  account,  Cic.  And 
yet  the  same  Cicero  uses  the  word  inducere  to  denote  the  erasure 
of  what  is  written,  as  "  inducere  Senatus  consultum,  seu  loca- 
tionem,"  to  erase  a  decree  of  the  Senate,  or  a  lease ;  also,  "  in- 
ducere nomina,"  to  erase  names.  This  use  arose  from  the  fact 
that  writings  on  wax  tables  were  erased  by  drawing  the  wax  over 
the  tablets.  But  shall  we  say  the  same  word  cannot  possibly 
distinguish  ideas  so  opposite  as  to  introduce  into  a  record,  and  to 
blot  out  from  a  record,  and  therefore  induco  is  not  so  used  ? 

Can  anything  be  more  opposite  than  to  cut  or  tear  roughly, 
and  to  smoothe  and  polish  ?  And  yet  the  word  to  mangle  is  used 
to  denote  both.  The  mangled  body  of  a  soldier  might  repose  in 
nicely  mangled  linen  sheets. 

The  truth  is,  common  sense  and  the  context  always  guide  us, 
in  such  cases,  and  the  actual  usages  of  language  refuse  to  be 
bound  by  a  priori  canons  as  to  what  is  possible  or  impossible. 

2.  In  certain  situations,  two  words,  or  even  several  words, 

MAY  V^riTH  EQUAL  PROPRIETY  FILL  THE  SAME  PLACE,  THOUGH  THEY  ARE 
ALL  ESSENTIALLY  DIFFERENT  IN  THEIR  SIGNIFICATIONS,  p.  57  ;    6.  g. 

a  man  who  is  immersed,  and  is  wet,  and  washed,  and  purified  by 
it,  may,  in  describing  the  transaction,  say  truly,  I  was  immersed  ; 
or  1  was  wet ;  or  I  was  washed  ;  or  I  was  purified  ;  and  yet  it 
does  not  follow  that  all  of  these  words  mean  the  same  thing. 
Hence  if,  in  describing  the  baptism  of  Christ,  it  is  said  he  was 
purified  ;  it  does  not  follow  of  course  that  purify  is  a  synonyme 
of  baptize.  It  may  be  that  it  is  merely«jsed  in  its  place.  Dr. 
Carson  introduces  this  canon  with  great  authority  :  "I  do  not 
request  my  readers  to  admit  my  canon.  I  insist  on  their  sub- 
mission  :  let  them  deny  it  if  they  can."  Dr.  Carson  obviously 
looks  upon  this  as  a  profound  and  original  view  ;  for  he  says, 
"  it  is  from  ignorance  of  this  principle  that  lexicographers  have 


^  ■!(:.  DR.  carson's  system,  and  canons.  139 

given  meanings  to  words  which  they  do  not  possess,"  p.  57.  Its 
truth  I  do  not  deny ;  of  its  profundity  and  originality  let  others 
judge. 

3.  "  One  mode  of  wetting  is  figured  as  another  mode  of  wetting 
by  the  liveliness  of  the  imagination,"  p.  38  ;  e.  g.  "  A  cold 
shuddering  dew  dips  me  all  o'er," — Milton.  This  canon  is  de- 
signed to  exclude  the  meaning  to  wet  from  fBa-TTTu,  in  the  case 
where  it  is  said  of  Nebuchadnezzar :  s§a{py)  difo  Tr,g  5p6(fou  tou 
oij^'Xvou  TO  tfojfJia  a-orov,  i.  e.  his  body  was  wet  by  the  dew  of 
heaven ;  according  to  Dr.  Carson,  his  body  was  dipped,  is  a 
lively  and  imaginative  mode  of  expressing  his  thorough  wetting  by 
the  dew  ;  which  in  fact  was  not  a  dipping.  This  canon  exhausts 
its  full  force  in  a  vain  effort  to  dispose  of  this  passage.* 

4.  "  Metaphor- is  not  bound  to  find  examples  to  justify  its  par- 
ticular  figures  ;  but  may  indulge  itself  wherever  it  finds  resem- 
blance." Reply,  p.  436.  This  canon  is  introduced,  as  we  shall 
see  in  its  place,  to  repel  my  allegation  that  there  are  no  examples 
in  the  use  of  language  to  justify  the  figure,  "  immerse  in  the 
Holy  Spirit." 

5.  We  are  to  distinguish  between  the  nature  of  the  rite  and 
the  meaning  of  its  name  :  e.  g.  when  Chrysostom  says,  "  Christ 
calls  his  cross  baptism,  because  by  it  he  purified  the  world  ;"  he 
may  refer  not  to  the  import  of  the  name  of  the  rite,  but  to  its  na- 
ture as  a  rite  of  purification.  "  It  is  quite  immaterial  whether 
the  idea  of  purification  be  found  in  the  name  or  in  the  nature  of 
the  ordinance." — Reply,  p.  471.  Such  arc  Dr.  Carson's  leading 
canons  of  trial. 

It  is  plain  on  looking  at  them,  that  they  are  all  designed  for  one 
end,  to  explain  away  alleged  secondary  senses,  by  proving  that 
the  primary  may  be  retained  ;  they  do  not  prove  that  it  is  re- 
tained, but  that  ij;  may  be, — that  we  are  not  compelled  to  admit  a 
secondary  sense. 

Dr.  Carson's  fmal  step  is  to  introduce  what  he  calls  the  testi- 


The  preposition  and  forbids  this  interpretation. 


140  DR.  Carson's  system,  and  caissons.  ^  46. 

mony  of  the  word  /Sa-n-Ti'^w  itself;  i.  e.  the  fact  that  it  clearly 
has  the  sense  immerse  in  other  cases ;  this,  and  the  fact  that  it 
may  have  it  in  this  case,  proves  that  it  actually  has  it,  however 
improbable  it  may  be,  from  the  nature  of  the  subject  spoken  of. 

But  Dr.  Carson  commonly  takes  this  last  step,  by  assuming  the 
very  point  in  debate ;  i.  e.  that  he  has  proved  that  the  word 
^a^Tj^w  never  means  anything  but  immerse,  in  the  whole  range 
of  the  Greek  language ;  when  the  very  question  in  debate  is  : 
Has  it  not  another  meaning  ?     For, 

1.  He  has  made  only  a  limited  examination  of  the  uses  of  the 
word.  Quite  large,  indeed,  in  one  view  of  the  matter.  Far 
larger  than  was  necessary  if  he  merely  aimed  to  prove  that  im- 
merse is  a  meaning  of /Sa-^rrj^w.  But  if  he  aimed  to  exclude  every 
other  meaning,  far  too  limited.  The  word  /Sa-n'ri^w  and  its  de- 
rivatives occur  in  the  writers  of  ecclesiastical  Greek  ten  times, 
not  to  say  a  hundred  times  more  frequently  than  in  all  the  classic 
Greek  writers  taken  together.  For  as  a  leading  ordinance  of 
Christianity,  through  which  the  forgiveness  of  sins  and  eternal 
life  were  supposed  to  come,  baptism  was  to  them  a  subject  of  deep 
and  incessant  interest ;  it  filled  all  their  thoughts — it  gave  color 
to  all  their  emotions — it  pervaded  all  their  voluminous  works. 
For  successive  folio  pages,  fSatri^u  or  its  derivatives  meet  the  eye 
incessantly  on  every  page.  In  them  also  the  word  is  used  with 
direct  reference  to  the  Christian  ordinance  of  baptism — so  that  no- 
thing can  be  more  in  point  than  their  testimony.  And  Dr.  Carson 
earnestly  maintains  that  they  must  have  known  the  sense  in 
which  it  was  used  by  the  apostles.  Yet  from  this  part  of  the 
language,  in  his  work  on  baptism,  he  produced  few  examples, 
yea,  I  had  almost  said  none.  Nor  have  I  yet  been  able  to  find 
any  proof  that  he  had  ever  read  the  Greek  Fathers  on  this  sub- 
ject— I  do  not  say  that  he  had  not,  but  merely.that  he  has  made 
assertions  that  I  know  not  how  to  explain  if  he  had,  as  I  shall 
soon  show. 

2.  On  this  limited  examination  of  the  uses  of  the  word,  he  has 
based  the  affirmation  that  he  has  "  by  the  use  of  language  found 


§  46.  DR.  Carson's  system,  and  canons.  141 

that  the  word  has  this  meaning  (i.  e.  immerse),  and  no  other." 
He  says  lie  has  found  this  to  be  so.  What  does  this  mean  ?  Has 
he  examined  every  case  of  its  usage  in  the  Greek  language  ?  He 
does  not  pretend  it.  Nay,  he  clearly  declares  that  he  has  not. 
*'  I  regret,"  he  says,  "  that  I  have  not  every  passage  in  which  the 
word  occurs  in  the  Greek  language."  (On  Baptism,  p.  24.) 
How,  then,  did  Dr.  Carson  find  that  the  word  j^a-rTji^w  means 
immerse  in  passages  which,  even  according  to  his  own  showing, 
he  never  saw  ?  There  can  be  no  way  except  that  in  which  he 
establishes  one  of  his  canons,  p.  90  :  Without  reference  to  the 
practice  of  language  and  on  the  authority  of  self-evident 
TRUTH  ! !  Truly  tliis  is  a  convenient  way  of  settling  the  mean- 
ing of  words.  If  this  is  not  the  way  in  which  Dr.  Carson  has 
found  out  the  meaning  of  /Sa'm'^oj  in  cases  which  he  has  never 
seen,  I  wait  to  learn  by  aid  of  what  undiscovered  principle  he 
has  found  it. 

3.  Upon  a  basis  so  frail  Dr.  Carson,  with  unparalleled  bold- 
ness, makes  assertions  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  in  the  whole 
range  and  history  of  the  Greek  language.  P.  448,  "  Immersion 
is  the  only  meaning  of  the  word  in  every  instance  in  the  whole 
compass  of  the  language."  P.  449,  "I  tell  Mr.  Beecher  it  never 
signifies  to  purify.  My  authority  is  the  practice  of  the  Greek 
language."  P.  464,  he  calls  this  "the  ascertained  meaning  of 
the  word."     P.  451,  "  its  established  meaning." 

4.  Incredible  as  it  may  seem,  yet  it  is  true,  that  on  an  assump- 
tion  so  totally  devoid  of  proof,  on  such  a  mere  petitio  principii, 
Dr.  Carson's  whole  argument  against  me  is  based.  Having  thus 
found  out  and  ascertained  the  meaning  of  the  word,  he  calls  it 
"  the  testimony  of  the  word  known  by  its  use,"  p.  451  ;  "  the 
authority  of  the  word,"  p.  452,  and  gravely  informs  us,  p.  459, 
tiiat  "  probability,  even  the  highest  probability  avails  nothing 
against  testimony;"  and  p.  464,  "to  allege  probability  against 
the  ascertained  meaning  of  a  word,  is  to  deny  testimony  as  a 
source  of  evidence,  for  the  meaning  of  testimony  must  be  known 


142  DR.  carson's  system,  and  canons.  §  46. 

by  the  words  used."  But  what  is  this  testimony  ?  Is  the  word 
/Sa-Trri'^w  a  living  intelligent  being  ?  Is  it  conscious  of  its  own 
meaning  ?  Has  it  testified  to  Dr.  Carson  as  to  its  universal  use  ? 
If  not,  and  if  Dr.  Carson  has  seen  but  a  few  out  of  the  multitude 
of  its  usages,  how  dares  he  to  call  the  little  that  he  has  seen,  the 
universal,  absolute,  and  exclusive  sense  of  the  word,  and  then  to 
personify  it,  as  a  witness  in  a  court  of  justice,  swearing  down  all 
probable  evidence  by  direct  testimony  ?  Never  was  there  a 
more  perfect  illusion  than  such  reasoning  as  this.  It  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  proving  the  point  in  question  by  incessantly 
and  dogmatically  assuming  it.  For  until  he  has  first  assumed, 
without  proof,  that  he  has  "  found"  or  "  ascertained,"  that  /Sa'TTT-j'^w 
means  immerse,  and  nothing  else,  "  in  every  instance  in  the 
whole  compass  of  the  language,"  even  in  those  cases  which  he 
never  saw,  how  can  he  make  the  word  testify  to  that  point  ? 

And  yet  this  is  his  all-subduing  argument  in  every  case. 
First,  by  his  canons  of  trial  he  makes  the  sense  immerse  possi- 
ble, and  then  brings  forward  his  witness,  (Bairri^c^,  to  testify  that 
it  has  but  one  sense  in  the  whole  range  of  the  Greek  tongue,  and 
that  one  immerse.  He  compares,  p.  449,  the  meaning  that  he 
claims,  to  a  client  whose  title  to  the  whole  estate  is  in  evidence.  P. 
451,  "  The  couches  were  immersed,  because  the  word  has  this 
signification  and  no  other."  P.  450,  "  To  deny  this  is  to  give 
the  lie  to  the  inspired  narrators.  The  word  used  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  signifies  immersion,  and  immersion  only."  P.  453,  "  In 
fact,  to  allege  that  the  couches  were  not  immersed,  is  not  to  decide 
on  the  authority  of  the  word  used,  but  in  opposition  to  this  authori- 
ty,  to  give  the  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Inspiration  employs  a  word 
to  designate  the  purification  of  the  couches  which  never  signifies 
anything  but  immerse.  If  they  were  not  immersed,  the  historian 
is  a  false  witness.  This  way  of  conferring  meaning  on  words  is 
grounded  on  infidelity,"  Again  :  "  When  the  Holy  Spirit  em- 
ploys words  whose  meanings  are  not  relished,  critics  do  not  say 
that  he  lies,  but  they  say  what  is  equal   to  this,   that  his  words 


§  47.     MY  PRINCIPLES HOW  DR.  CARSON  REPRESENTS  THEM.         143 

mean  what  they  cannot  mean.  [This  is  a  respectful  way  of  call- 
ing him  a  liar."]*  I  had  said,  Bib.  Rep.  April,  1840,  p.  359,t 
"  The  question  is  not  :  Will  we  believe  that  the  couches  were  im- 
mersed, if  the  Holy  Ghost  says  so,  but  this,  Has  he  said  so  V 
and  I  decided  that  he  has  not.  This,  according  to  Dr.  Carson,  is 
a  respectful  way  of  calling  him  a  liar.  Now,  in  reply  to  all  this,  I 
totally  deny  Dr.  Carson's  whole  ground  work,  in  general,  and  in 
particular — in  the  whole,  and  in  all  its  parts.  There  is  no  such 
testimony  of  the  word  (3airri^(jj,  as  he  alleges.  It  is  all  a  mere 
fiction  of  Dr.  Carson's,  sustained  by  no  evidence  but  his  own  un- 
proved assertion.  It  is  a  mere  dream.  Does  Dr.  Carson  allege 
passages  in  which  the  meaning  immerse  clearly  occurs  ?  I  do 
not  deny  the  meaning  in  those  cases :  in  other  cases  I  do  deny  it, 
and  claim  that  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  of  another  sense. 
And  am  I  to  be  answered  by  such  a  mere  figment  as  an  alleged 
testimony  of  the  word  as  to  its  own  use  in  all  cases  in  the  whole 
language,  when  in  fact  all  that  this  testimony  amounts  to,  is  Dr. 
Carson's  unproved  assertion  ?  And  on  such  grounds  as  these,  am 
I  to  be  charged  with  giving  the  lie  to  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  And  yet, 
this  is  the  whole  foundation  of  Dr.  Carson's  argument  against  me. 
His  whole  logical  strength  lies  here.  This  mere  petitio  principii, 
dressed  up  in  all  shapes,  and  urged  with  unparalleled  assurance, 
figures  from  beginning  to  end  of  his  reply.  In  this  consists  its 
whole  heart,  and  soul,  and  mind,  and  strength,  and  life.  It  has 
no  energy  that  is  not  derived  from  this. 

Such,  then,  are  Mr.  Carson's  principles — such  is  his  system, 
and  such  the  mode  in  which  he  applies  his  principles. 

§  47.    My  Principles — Hoiv  Dr.  Carson  represents  them. 

Of  my  principles  he  speaks  fiercely  ;  and  calls  them  false,  fima- 
tical,  and  subversive  of  all  revealed  truth.     It  is  important,  then, 


*  This  sentence  is  omitted  in  the  last  edition  of  Dr.  Carson's  reply  to  me. 
t  See  §  14, 


144        MY  PRINCIPLES HOAV  DR.  CARSON  REPRESENTS  THEM.     §  47. 

to  inquire  what  are  they  ?  and  has  Dr.  Carson  truly  represented 
them? 

In  answer  to  this,  I  reply,  he  has  not. 

He  has  nowhere  fairly  stated  or  answered  my  principles  at  all ; 
and  no  one  from  his  reply  could  imagine  what  they  are.  What 
then  has  he  done  ?  He  discusses  no  principles  at  the  outset.  He 
merely  says  that  I  have  proved  no  secondary  sense  of  ^acrTj^w, 
and  that  "  my  dissertation  is  no  more  to  critical  deduction  than 
Waverley  or  Kenilworth  to  history.  Indeed  the  relation  is  not  so 
true  ;  it  wants  that  verisimilitude  which  is  to  be  found  in  the 
novels  of  the  illustrious  Scott.  To  the  ignorant  there  is  an  ap- 
pearance of  philosophy  and  learning,  but  sound  criticism  will 
have  little  difficulty  in  taking  the  foundation  from  under  the  edi- 
fice which  he  has  labored  to  erect,"  page  429.  He  then  takes  up 
the  passages  on  which  I  rely,  and  proceeds,  in  his  way,  to  take  out 
the  foundation.  That  is,  he  assumes  the  truth  of  his  own  princi- 
ples, though  I  had  proved  them  to  be  false — suppresses  or  misre- 
presents mine,  and  then  declares  that  all  the  evidence  I  have  ad- 
duced is  no  proof — and  is  filled  with  unutterable  amazement  at 
my  excessive  want  of  perspicacity,  etc.  All  of  which  amounts 
to  merely  this,  that  I  rely  on  arguments  which  his  principles  re- 
ject, but  which  are  sound  and  unanswerable  according  to  my 
own.  In  other  words,  though  I  have  proved  his  principles  to  be 
false,  yet  because  I  do  not  see  with  his  eyes,  therefore  I  do  not 
see  at  all,  but  am  stupid,  blind,  etc. 

At  length,  on  p.  464,  he  thus  represents  my  principles. 

"  Mr.  Beecher  proceeds  on  an  axiom  that  is  false,  fanatical,  and 
subversive  of  all  revealed  truth — namely,  that  meaning  is  to  be 
assigned  to  words  in  any  document,  not  from  the  authority  of  the 
use  of  language,  ascertained  by  acknowledged-  examples,  but 
from  views  of  probability  of  the  thing  related  independently  of 
the  testimony  of  the  word." 

Dr.  Carson  does  not  pretend  that  this  axiom  is  stated  in  my 
words ;  but  he  gives  it  in  his  own  words,  and  in  italics  too,  as  a 
condensed  summary  of  my  principles.    To  all  this  I  have  but  one 


^  48.  TRUE  STATEMENT  OF  MY  PRINCIPLES.  145 

reply  to  make,  and  that  is  a  direct  denial.  I  reject  this  statement 
of  my  views,  as  entirely  delusive,  and  totally  unfair.  Do  I  indeed 
avowedly  disregard  the  authority  of  the  use  of  language,  ascer- 
tained by  acknowledged  examples,  in  assigning  meaning  to  words  ? 
All  my  principles  are  avowedly  derived  from  the  use  of  language, 
ascertained  by  acknowledged  examples,  and  rest  upon  this  use. 

What  I  actually  do  is  this.  In  assigning  a  secondary  meaning 
to  words,  I  regard  three  things  at  least,  and  not  one  alone.  I  re- 
gard, 1.  General  laws  of  language,  established  by  examples.  2. 
The  original  and  primary  sense  of  particular  words.  3.  The 
circumstances  of  the  speaker,  and  the  nature  of  the  subject 
spoken  of.  It  is  by  considering  all  these  that  I  decide  when  a 
word  has  a  secondary  sense. 

§  48.     True  Statement  of  my  Princqjles. 

My  principles  are  fully  and  carefully  set  forth  in  §§  1-7,  occu- 
pying in  all  nearly  18  pages.  No  one  who  will  carefully  read 
them,  can  mistake  them,  or  think  that  I  hold  the  views  ascribed  to 
me  by  Dr.  Carson.  I  cannot  again  go  over  all  that  ground  ;  but 
for  the  sake  of  perspicuity,  I  will  here  briefly  recapitulate  the 
most  important  of  my  principles. 

1.  In  assigning  secondary  senses,  we  are  to  be  guided,  as  just 
stated,  by  general  lav/s  of  language,  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word,  the  circumstances  of  the  speaker,  and  the  nature  of  the 
subject  spoken  of. 

2.  One  of  these  general  laws  is,  that,  inasmuch  as  in  all  lan- 
guages, a  large  number  of  words  have  left  their  primary  sense 
and  adopted  secondary  senses,  it  is  never  a  priori  improbable  that 
the  same  should  be  true  of  any  particular  word. 

3.  But  whilst  such  transitions  are  common  in  all  words,  they 
are  particularly  common  in  words  of  the  class  of  /3a<rTi^w,  denot- 
ing action  by,  or  with  a  reference  to  a  fluid.  This  is  owing  to 
the  fact,  that  the  effects  produced  by  the  action  depend  not  on  the 

7 


148  TRUE  STATEMENT  OF  MY  PRINCIPLES.  §  48. 

action  alone,  but  on  the  action  and  the  fluid  combined,  and  of 
course  may  be  varied  as  the  fluid  or  its  application  varies.  And 
this  I  illustrated  at  great  length,  by  acknowledged  examples  of  the 
use  of  language  in  the  case  of  cognate  words. 

From  this  I  inferred  that  the  usages  of  languages  create  no 
probability  against  a  secondary  sense  of  the  word  (Swri'Ti^u,  but 
that  the  probability  is  decidedly  in  its  favor.  Still  further,  I  al- 
leged, 

4.  That  the  existence  of  manners  and  customs  tending  to  such 
a  result,  renders  such  a  result  still  more  probable ;  and  that 
among  the  Jews  such  manners  and  customs  did  exist. 

5.  That  this  probability  is  still  more  increased  according  to 
the  laws  of  language,  by  the  fact  that  ,/3a'7r'Tj^w  refers  to  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  that  this  is  to  purify,  and  that  no  external 
act  has  in  itself  any  fitness  to  present  this  idea  to  the  mind.  For 
the  effects  of  pouring,  sprinkling,  and  immersion,  depend  not  on 
the  act,  but  on  the  fluid.  The  act  being  the  same,  ink,  or  oil,  or 
wine,  or  pure  water,  or  filthy  water,  would  produce  effects  en- 
tirely unlike.  The  law  of  language  in  this  case  is,  that  in  the 
progress  of  society  new  ideas  produce  either  new  words  or  new 
senses  of  old  words — and  that  ^a'n'ri^o),  when  applied  to  the  opera- 
tions of  the  Holy  Ghost,  was  applied  to  a  subject  of  thought  un- 
known to  the  writers  of  classic  Greek,  and  therefore  had  probably 
undergone  a  change  to  qualify  it  for  its  purpose,  i.  e.  to  designate 
his  peculiar  work. 

Now  all  of  these  principles  relate  to  general  laws  of  language, 
and  in  proof  of  them  I  appealed  to  acknowledged  facts  in  the  use 
of  lantjuao^e. 

But  I  clearly  stated  that  these  principles  do  not  of  themselves 
prove  that  /^a-Trn'^w  means  to  purify,  but  merely  open  the  way 
for  such  proof,  and  enable  us  to  decide  what,  and  how  much  proof 
is  needed  in  order  to  prove  the  point.  I  also  definitely  stated  that 
it  was  to  be  proved  as  other  facts  are,  i.  e.  by  appropriate  evi- 
dence. 


§  48.  TRUE  STATEMENT  OF  MY  PRINCIPLES.  147 

And  here  comes  up  the  real  ground  of  difference  between  Dr. 
Carson  and  me.  This  point  deserves  particular  attention.  The 
whole  stress  of  this  part  of  the  battle  is  concentrated  here. 

1.  Dr.  Carson  assumes,  against  all  these  previous  probabilities, 
that  a  secondary  sense  in  the  word  (Swrrri^u  cannot  be  established 
except  by  the  highest  possible  proof,  i.  e.  a  case  in  which  the 
primitive  sense  is  impossible.  This  I  totally  deny,  and  maintain 
that  a  lower  degree  of  proof  is  amply  sufficient  to  establish  a  mean- 
ing, which  the  laws  of  language  have  already  rendered  so  pro- 
bable. 

2.  Dr.  Carson  totally  disregards  not  only  the  lower  degrees  of 
moral  evidence,  but  the  laws  of  cumulative  evidence  also.  He 
takes  each  passage  separately,  and  if  he  can  prove  that  it  does 
not  come  up  to  his  canon  of  proof,  i.  e.  if  it  cannot  be  shown  that 
the  sense  immersion  is  impossible,  he  sets  it  aside  as  a  cipher,  and 
so  of  every  other  one  in  detail.  He  then  says,  "each  of  the 
cases  considered  separately  is  nothing ;  all  taken  together,  then, 
must  be  nothing.  It  is  the  addition  or  multiplication  of  ciphers." 
— Reply,  p.  465. 

All  this  I  totally  deny,  and  maintain  that  it  is  entirely  at  war 
with  the  laws  of  moral  and  cumulative  evidence.  Because  the 
reasoning  of  philology  is  not  demonstrative,  but  moral  and  cumu- 
lative, and  an  ultimate  result  depends  upon  the  combined  impres- 
sion of  all  the  facts  of  a  given  case  as  a  whole,  on  the  principle 
that  the  view  which  best  harmonizes  all  the  facts,  and  falls  in 
with  the  known  laws  of  the  human  mind,  is  true. 

And  where  many  separate  and  independent  facts  all  tend, 
with  different  degrees  of  probability,  to  a  common  result,  there  is 
an  evidence  over  and  above  the  evidence  furnished  by  each  case 
in  itself,  in  the  coincidence  of  so  many  separate  and  independent 
probabilities,  in  a  common  result.  And  to  prove  that  each  may 
be  explained  otherwise,  and  is  not  in  itself  a  demonstration,  can- 
not break  the  force  of  the  fact  that  so  many  separate  and  inde- 
pendent probabilities  all  tend  one  way.  The  probability  thus 
produced,  is  greater  than  the  sum  of  the  separate  probabilities  ;  it 


148  DR.  Carson's  course  and  his  objections.  §  49. 

has  the  force  of  the  fact  that  they  coincide,  and  that  the  assump- 
tion of  the  truth  of  the  meaning  in  which  they  all  coincide,  is  the 
only  mode  of  explaining  the  coincidence. 

Any  one  of  the  following  facts  may  be  true  of  a  young  gentle- 
man and  a  lady,  to  whom  it  is  not  improper  or  improbable  that  he 
should  be  married,  without  giving  reason  to  believe  that  they  are 
engaged.  They  may  be  seen  walking  together  in  one  instance, 
or  riding  together,  or  in  a  store  together,  or  looking  at  furniture 
together,  or  they  may  exchange  letters  in  one  instance  with  each 
other,  or  they  may  be  seen  examining  a  house  together  ;  and  each 
act  may  be  such  as  not  to  prove  an  engagement ;  but  can  all  these 
acts  take  place  in  connexion  with  each  other,  and  each  be  oft  re- 
peated, and  yet  furnish  no  higher  proof  of  an  engagement  than 
any  one  alone  ?  Shall  we  say  each  is  nothing,  and  therefore  all 
taken  together  are  nothing  ;  it  is  the  addition  or  multiplication  of 
ciphers  ? 

So,  if  there  is  no  reason  why  ^airri^c^  should  not  have  the  sense 
purify,  and  a  strong  probability  that  it  should,  and  innumerable 
facts  on  all  sides  create  each  a  probability  of  it,  is  the  existence 
and  coincidence  of  all  these  facts  nothing,  because  each  by  itself 
does  not  demonstrate  it  ?  Such  is  Dr.  Carson's  position — such  is 
not  mine.  Who  is  correct  let  the  universal  opinions  and  prac- 
tices of  mankind,  and  the  laws  of  circumstantial  evidence  in  all 
courts  of  justice,  decide. 

Such,  in  short,  are  my  principles,  and  my  whole  argument, 
tested  by  these,  is  sound  and  unanswerable.  Dr.  Carson  in  re- 
plying to  me,  ought  first  to  have  stated  them  clearly,  and  to  have 
shown  their  falsehood,  if  he  could.  This  he  has  not  done,  nor  at- 
tempted to  do,  and  that  for  the  best  of  all  reasons,  they  admit  of 
no  reasonable  denial,  and  they  cannot  be  disproved. 

§  49.     Dr.  Carson's  Course  and  his  Objections. 

What  then  does  Dr.  Carson  do  ?  Hear  him,  p.  429.  "  To 
much  of  the  former  part  of  the  work  I  can  have  no  possible  ob- 


§  49.  DR.  carson's  course  and  his  objections.  149 

jection,  because  it  is  a  mere  echo  of  my  own  philological  doc- 
trines, illustrated  with  different  examples.  In  a  work  controvert- 
ing the  conclusions  which  I  have  drawn  in  my  treatise  on  baptism, 
it  surely  was  very  unnecessary  to  prove  that  words  may  have  a 
secondary  meaning  wandering  very  far  from  their  original  import. 
Can  any  writer  be  pointed  out  who  has  shown  this  more  fully 
than  I  have  done  ?  I  do  not  question  this  principle.  /  have  laid 
it  down  for  him  as  a  foundation."  We  have  here  an  admirable 
specimen  of  Dr.  Carson's  usual  modesty  and  humility.  Does  Dr. 
Carson  indeed  regard  himself  as  the  father  of  the  doctrine,  that 
words  may  have  a  secondary  meaning  wandering  very  far  from 
their  original  import  ?  If  not,  why  does  he  call  it  his  own  philo- 
logical doctrine  ?  It  is  7n?7ie  as  truly  as  his.  Does  he  indeed 
think  that  he  has  laid  it  down  for  me  as  a  foundation  ?  My  teach- 
ers in  college,  yea,  in  my  childhood,  had  anticipated  Dr.  Carson 
in  that  work.  Even  in  my  sophomore  year,  it  never  occurred  to 
me  that  this  was  a  discovery,  a  new  idea.  On  what  other  prin- 
ciple have  all  sound  modern  lexicographers  and  commentators 
ever  proceeded  ?  I  stated  it,  not  because  I  deemed  it  a  new  idea, 
but  because  I  did  not.  Because  I  considered  it  a  first  principle  of 
common  sense  on  the  whole  subject.  I  was,  indeed,  surprised  to 
see  it  fully  recognised  by  Dr.  Carson  ;  Baptists  are  so  prone  to 
forget  it.  But  I  should  as  soon  think  of  calling  the  doctrine  that 
there  is  a  God,  or  that  every  effect  must  have  a  cause,  my  own 
doctrine,  as  to  call  the  doctrine  that  words  may  have  a  secondary 
sense,  my  own. 

But  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  to  much  of  the  former  part  of  the  work 
I  can  have  no  possible  objection."  Very  well.  Of  how  much  is 
this  true  ?  Fle  does  not  say  ;  he  implies  that  to  some,  he  does  ob- 
ject, but  does  not  say  to  what.  This  again  is  a  prudent  silence. 
It  would  not  answer  to  state  fairly,  and  in  my  own  words,  what  he 
does  object  to.  For  the  mere  statement  of  the  principles  on  which 
my  argument  rests  is  their  proof.  And  they  are  entirely  fatal  to 
his  cause. 

What  then  docs  he  do  ?     He  proceeds  to  the  discussion  of  the 


150  DR.  carson's  course  and  his  objections.  §  49. 

passages  alleged  by  me,  and  silently  assuming  tlie  truth  of  his 
own  positions,  in  cases  where  we  differ,  he  charges  upon  me  ig- 
norance of  the  laws  of  controversy,  want  of  perspicacity,  heresy, 
nonsense,  blasphemy,  etc.,  because  my  conclusions  do  not  agree 
with  his  premises,  though  they  follow  irresistibly  from  my  own. 
Would  it  not  have  been  much  better  to  show  that  my  premises 
were  false  ?  Alas !  that  he  could  not  do.  Being  determined  not 
to  admit  the  truth,  he  did  the  only  thing  that  remained,  first  to 
misrepresent,  and  then  to  deny  it. 

Let  it  not  then  be  forgotten  that  the  real  question  at  issue  is  not 
this,  Shall  a  secondary  meaning  of  /Sa-TTTt^w  be  admitted  from 
mere  views  of  probability,  without  reference  to  the  usages  of  lan- 
guage, or  to  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word  ?  but  this  :  A  cer- 
tain secondary  sense  of  /Sa'^Ti'^w  being  probable  according  to  the 
laws  of  language  and  of  the  human  mind,  how  much  evidence  is 
needed  to  prove  it,  and  of  what  kind  shall  it  be  ?  Dr.  Carson 
says,  an  impossibility  of  the  primitive  sense  in  some  one  instance, 
and  rejects  all  degrees  of  probability  below  this,  as  ciphers.  I 
deny  the  necessity  of  such  proof,  and  allege  that  a  proof  may  be 
made  out  by  lower  degrees  of  probability,  so  coinciding,  as  to 
form  a  cumulative  argument  on  the  principles  of  circumstantial 
evidence. 

But  Dr.  Carson  may  say  that  these  degrees  of  probability  arise, 
not  from  the  words  of  the  record,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  thing 
spoken  of.  True,  they  do  ;  and  so  does  the  impossibility  that  he 
demands.  Why  is  it  impossible  to  immerse  a  lake  in  the  blood 
of  a  mouse  ?  Not  the  word  /Ja-Trrw,  but  the  nature  of  things  for- 
bids it.  Why  is  it  highly  improbable  that  all  the  Jews  immersed 
their  couches  ?  Not  the  word  /Sa-TTTi'^w,  but  the  nature  of  things, 
makes  it  highly  improbable  that  such  a  practice  was  ever  univer- 
sal among  all  the  Jeivs,  though  it  is  not  absolutely  impossible. 
Does  Dr.  Carson  mean  that,  in  assigning  the  meaning  to  words, 
we  are  not  to  regard  the  nature  and  properties  of  the  things  spoken 
of  at  all  ?  Or  that  we  are  to  regard  them  only  when  they  render 
a  particular  meaning  impossible  ?     But  why  this  distinction  ?     On 


§  49.  DR.  Carson's  course  and  his  objections.  151 

what  is  it  founded  ?  Here  are  nine  cases  in  which  a  given 
secondary  meaning  is  probable,  in  different  degrees,  rising  one 
above  another,  till  at  last  we  reach  a  tenth,  in  which  no  other 
meaning  is  possible.  Hero,  says  Dr.  Carson,  is  something  worthy 
of  being  regarded  ;  but  all  the  nine  preceding  degrees  must  be 
dismissed  as  ciphers.     Is  this  sound  philosophy  ? 

But  Dr.  Carson  says  that  my  principle  is  the  same  with  that  of 
the  Unitarians.  I  reply,  so  is  his.  My  principle  is,  that  in  as- 
signing secondary  meanings  to  words,  we  are  to  regard  the  nature 
of  the  things  spoken  of  ;  and  this  is  his, — and  it  is  also  a  princi- 
ple of  the  Unitarians,  and  of  all  persons  of  common  sense.  Does 
a  truth  cease  to  be  a  truth  because  Unitarians  hold  it  ? 

But  Dr.  Carson  says  that,  on  the  ground  of  j^robahilities  derived 
from  the  thing  spoken  of,  Unitarians  and  Neologists  explain  away 
the  word  of  God.  So  they  do  on  the  ground  of  possibilities  de- 
rived from  the  nature  of  things  spoken  of.  Has  Dr.  Carson  never 
heard  the  argument,  that  three  persons  cannot  be  one  God  ?  and 
that  the  word  God  is  therefore  to  be  taken  in  a  lower  and  second- 
ary sense,  when  applied  to  Christ  ? 

And  will  he  reject  a  true  principle  of  interpretation  because  it 
m«y  be  and  has  been  falsely  applied  ?  The  principle  is  true,  let 
it  lead  to  what  results  it  may,  that  in  the  interpretation  of  all  lan- 
guage we  must  look  to  the  things  spoken  of,  and  regard  all  that 
we  know  of  their  nature,  properties,  and  laws,  and  not  needlessly 
involve  a  writer  in  a  contradiction  of  any  of  them  ;  and  especially 
is  this  true  of  the  word  of  God,  for  it  is  inspired ;  and  he  who 
made  the  laws  of  mind  and  matter  is  not  to  be  represented  as  con- 
tradicting them  in  his  word.  And  yet,  what  principle  have  Uni- 
tarians employed  more  than  this,  against  the  Trinity  ?  Is  it  then 
a  Unitarian  principle  1  Nay,  rather  it  is  a  true  principle  ;  falsely 
applied,  indeed,  but  still  true. 

So  the  principle  of  regarding  probabilities  derived  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  subject,  in  assigning  secondary  senses  to  words,  may 
be  abused  ;  yet  it  is  nevertheless  a  true  principle,  and  one  of  vast 
importance. 


152  DR.  carson's  course  and  his  objections.  §  49. 

We  are  also  to  regard  the  primary  meaning  in  assigning  second- 
ary senses.  It  would  not  be  rational  to  assign  to  fSwTrri^c^  the 
sense  to  sing  or  dance,  because  no  law  of  the  mind,  and  no  cir- 
cumstances, manners,  or  customs,  led  from  the  sense  immerse  to 
them,  and  no  analogy  illustrates  such  a  transition  :  they  are, 
a  'priori,  and  in  every  respect  improbable.  It  is  not  so  of  the 
sense  to  purify.  It  denotes  an  eifect  of  immersion  in  pure  water. 
Such  a  transition  is  natural,  it  follows  the  analogy  of  language, 
and  circumstances  render  it  probable ;  of  course  it  admits  of 
an  easy  proof  by  probabilities  derived  from  the  nature  of  the 
thing  spoken  of. 

Sach  is  my  answer  to  Dr.  Carson's  vaunted  argument  from 
the  Columbo  bridge.  The  case  is  this :  Near  Columbo  is  a 
school,  on  the  bank  of  a  river ;  over  this  river  is  a  bridge  of  boats. 
It  is  related  by  Whitecross,  that  certain  boys,  too  poor  to  pay  the 
toll,  were  accustomed  to  swim  across  the  river  to  attend  the 
school.  Here,  says  Dr.  Carson,  according  to  Mr.  Beecher's 
philology,  if  we  had  only  a  general  statement  of  the  fact,  that 
the  boys  so  swam,  a  foreigner  must  take  swim  as  meaning  to 
walk  over  a  bridge  of  boats,  for  it  is  entirely  improbable  that  the 
boys  would  swim  when  there  was  a  bridge.  To  this  I  reply  :  Dr. 
Carson  admits  that  no  one  who  reads  the  whole  story  in  White- 
cross  could  make  such  a  mistake.  For  he  tells  us  that  they  did 
not  cross  the  bridge,  and  why  ;— and  why  they  swam,  and  car- 
ried  their  books,  and  how.  As  to  /Sa-TTTj^w,  we  have  the  whole 
story.  If  we  had  but  a  part  of  the  story,  as  to  the  boys,  still  I 
reply,  there  is  no  relation  between  the  sense  to  swim,  and  the  sense 
to  walk  on  a  bridge,  such  as  exists  between  immerse  and  purify. 
Immersion  in  pure  water  tends  to  produce  purification.  Does 
swimming  in  a  river  tend  to  produce  walking  over  a  bridge  ?  Dr. 
Carson  alleges  that  words  denoting  unlike  modes,  have  nothing  in 
common.  How  then  can  swimming  in  water,  tend  to  the  sense 
walking  on  a  bridge  ?  Can  Dr.  Carson  refer  me  to  such  a  tran- 
sition in  the  whole  range  of  the  Greek  language,  or  any  other  ? 
Why  then  does  he  set  this  forth  as  a  case  parallel  with  mine,  and 


§  50.  APPEAL  TO  FACTS.  153 

adapted  clearly  to  show  my  folly  ?  Yet  he  exults  as  if  this  case 
were  an  end  of  all  controversy,  and  refers  to  it  in  his  reply  again 
and  again.  Miserable  is  that  cause  that  drives  its  advocates  to 
such  shifts  as  these. 


§  50.     Appeal  to  Facts. 

But  all  principles  are  seen  most  clearly  in  the  light  of  facts. 
To  them  then  let  us  turn. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  (p.  387,  Lugduni  Batav.  1616)  says, 
»j  Sixwv  Tou  iBa'n'ricfixaros  sly]  av  xal  tj  sx  Mwutfs'wf  ifapadsSoixivr]  roTg 
ito\y]roAg  C)6s  -ttw^  : 

'  H  8'  vSpYivajj^ivr]  xai^apo,  XP^''  ^VfJ^ar'  iXovcfa  (Odyss.  iv.  759). 
7j  TLrivsXo'n'Yi  sifi  rrjv  sv-)(riv  s^-^srai TriKi^Ka-^og  8s 

XsTpag  vi-^aixsvos  itoXiTiC,  akos  sv-x^sr'  'A^tjvvj  (Odyss.  ii.  261.) 
"'E^og  TovTo  '  Iov8aiU)v  oj^  xal  to  TtoXKaxig  sitl  xoirr}  (3a'7rri^S(f&ai. 

On  this  I  remark, 

1.  That  Clement  is  in  the  context  speaking  of  Christian 
baptism. 

2.  He  states  that  "that  may  be  an  image  of  baptism  which  has 
been  handed  down  from  Moses  to  the  poets,  thus — 

Penelope  having  washed  herself,  and  having  on  her  body  clean 
apparel,  goes  to  prayer,  and  Telemachus  having  washed  his 
hands  in  the  hoary  sea,  prayed  to  Minerva,  This  was  the  cus- 
tom of  the  Jews  that  they  also  should  be  often  baptized  upon  their 
couch." 

Let  us  now  look  at  the  nature  of  things.  Here  is  before  us,  as 
a  nation,  the  Jews.  They  were  accustomed  to  recline  on  couches 
at  meals.  These  couches  were  large  enough  to  hold  from  three 
to  five  persons.  Clement  states  that  it  was  their  custom  to  be 
baptized  often  upon  their  couch.  We  know  that  as  a  matter 
of  fact  it  was  their  custom  to  wash  their  hands  often  during 
their  meals,  whilst  reclining  upon  their  couches — and  the  fre- 
quent immersions  of  men  on  a  couch  during  their  meals,  is  an 

7* 


154  APPEAL  TO  FACTS.  §  50. 

unheard  of  thing.  We  look  at  the  context.  He  had  just 
spoken  of  Telemachus  as  washing  his  hands — using  viVrw — and 
of  Penelope  as  washing  herself,  using  u^^aivw,  a  word  perfectly 
generic,  and  no  more  limited  to  one  mode  than  our  word  wash. 
We  look  further  on,  and  we  find  that  these  are  spoken  of  as  an 
image  of  baptism,  handed  down  from  Moses  to  the  poets.  We 
reflect  that  these  are  rites  of  purification,  and  that  Clement  had 
been  speaking  of  purity  as  essential  in  order  to  see  God.  And 
can  we  longer  doubt  ?  Washing  the  hands  is  a  purification. 
Pilate  used  it  to  denote  his  innocence.  The  Psalmist  says,  I  will 
wash  my  hands  in  innocence.  All  things  point  us  to  purity  and  pu- 
rification. The  sense  is  a  priori  probable — we  adopt  it.  We  be- 
lieve that  the  Jews  were  in  the  habit  of  purifying  themselves  often 
upon  their  couch  at  meals,  just  as  Telemachus  did,  that  is,  by 
washing  their  hands. 

But  was  it  not  possible  to  have  a  fixed  pulley  over  each  couch 
in  the  dining-room,  and  ropes  attached  to  the  corners  of  the  couch, 
and  a  baptistery  in  the  floor  below,  covered  by  a  trap  door,  and 
was  it  not  possible  to  elevate  the  couches,  open  the  trap  doors,  and 
immerse  guests  and  couches  together,  and  to  do  it  often  during 
the  same  meal  ?  But  it  would  be  excessively  inconvenient.  No 
matter  for  that,  what  will  not  superstition  do  ?  But  washing 
hands  is  spoken  of  as  an  image  of  baptism.  No  matter,  it  is  an 
image  of  it  as  to  its  nature,  whatever  may  be  the  meaning  of  the 
name.  (We  shall  hereafter  see  how  much  use  Dr.  Carson  makes 
of  this  distinction.)  Now  all  this  may  be  said.  Dr.  Carson  on 
his  principles  is  obliged  to  say  it.  But  whom  will  it  convince  ? 
None  but  the  man  who  has  a  cause  to  maintain,  which  is  lost  so 
soon  as  he  admits  that  the  word  ^aitri^u  means  to  purify,  irre- 
spective of  mode. 

Now  in  this  case,  the  probability  is  so  high  as  to  produce  on 
every  disinterested  mind  the  impression  of  certainty,  yet  because 
it  does  not  reach  Dr.  Carson's  arbitrary  canon,  it  is  to  be  rejected 
as  a  cipher.     But  who  will  dare  to  reject  it  ?     After  the  violence 


§  50.  APPEAL  TO  FACTS.  155 

of  party  spirit  has  put  forth  all  its  energies,  common  sense  will 
certainly  resume  her  sway,  and  cover  all  such  evasions  with 
merited  disgrace. 

Let  us  look  at  another  case. 

Justin  Martyr  (p.  164.  London  1772)  says,  t»  ya^  ocpsXog 
ixs  vou  Tou  /^a-TrTiVjxaroj,  o  to^v  da^xix  xal  (xovov  to  (fufxa  cpaiS^Cvsi ; 
(BaifTiadrirs  Ty;v  ■^v)(y})j  difo  o^yr^S,  xcii  dito  irXsovi^iocg,  diro  (p^ovou, 
d'JTo  i^Kf ovg  xal  loov  to  Cwjuia  xuda^ov  scTti,  "  What  is  the  profit  of 
that  baptism  which  purifies  the  flesh  and  the  body  alone  ?  Be 
baptized  as  to  your  souls,  from  anger  and  from  covetousness, 
from  envy  and  from  hatred,  and  lo  !  your  body  is  pure."  We 
look  at  the  nature  of  things.  An  actual  immersion  for  the  sake 
of  purity  does  not  belong  to  the  mind.  We  look  at  the  usages  of 
language.  The  mind  is  never  spoken  of  as  figuratively  immersed, 
for  mental  purity.  It  is  spoken  of  as  immersed  in  cares,  troubles, 
pollution,  &c.  We  look  at  the  language  used.  (Ba'Ttri^oj  is  fol- 
lowed by  dito  preceding  that  from  which  the  mind  is  to  be 
cleansed — this  suits  the  sense  to  purify,  but  not  the  sense  to  im- 
merse. We  say  naturally  be  purijied  from  anger — not  be  im- 
mersed from  anger.  We  look  at  the  context.  Justin  had  been 
speaking  of  the  atonement  of  Christ,  and  of  its  power  to  cleanse 
from  sin.  He  had  just  spoken  of  the  passage  in  Isaiah,  wash 
you,  make  you  clean,  as  referring  to  baptism.  He  has  spoken  of 
purifying,  washing,  cleansing,  in  various  forms,  but  has  used  no 
undisputed  equivalent  of  immersion,  such  as  xara^uw.  Whether 
then  we  look  at  the  nature  of  things,  or  the  general  usages  of 
language,  or  the  particular  language  of  this  passage,  or  of  the 
context,  all  tends  to  one  result.  All  things,  with  united  voice, 
call  out  for  the  sense  to  purify.  And  it  is  the  sense  ;  and  the 
true  translation  of  the  passage  is  this  :  "  What  is  the  profit  of  tliat 
purification,  wliich  purifies  the  flesh  and  the  body  alone  ?  Be 
purified  as  to  your  souls,  from  anger  and  from  covetousness,  from 
envy  and  from  hatred,  and  lo  !  your  body  is  pure.'"'  And  long 
after  all  tlie  efforts  of  party  spirit  to  v/rest  it  to  any  other  sense 


156  DR.  carson's  principles  subvert  themselves.        §  51. 

have  found  an  ignominious  grave,  it  will  stand  in  its  native 
simplicity  and  beauty,  satisfying  and  delighting  every  candid 
mind  by  its  inherent  and  self-evidencing  power  of  truth.  Another 
sense  can  indeed  be  forced  on  these  words  by  the  violence  of 
arbitrary  canons  of  logic  and  rhetoric.  But  the  laws  of  language, 
and  of  the  human  mind,  though  for  a  time  suppressed  by  force, 
cannot  die.  They  will  break  through  all  rhetorical  and  logical 
chains,  and  assert  and  make  good  their  indefeasible  claims. 

I  do  not  advocate  these  principles  so  earnestly  because  there 
are  no  passages  that  can  meet  Dr.  Carson's  highest  claims, — in 
my  second  book  I  have  produced  such,  and  I  have  many  more 
to  produce  before  I  close, — but  because  [  wish  to  repel  his  unrea- 
sonable claims  of  evidence,  and  to  restore  the  usages  of  language 
to  their  true  and  inherent  liberties,  against  his  violence  and  force. 

The  human  mind  is  an  instrument  of  wondrous  delicacy,  and 
language  is  its  mirror.  The  slightest  influence  of  taste,  circum- 
stances, and  subjects  of  thought,  affect  its  meaning.  The  manner 
in  which  it  passes  from  sense  to  sense,  in  the  use  of  words  is  to  be 
ascertained  by  observation,  and  cannot  be  fixed  a  priori,  by 
theory.  And  if  it  passes  easily  from  sense  to  sense,  in  words  of 
a  given  class,  no  man  has  a  right  to  make  the  proof  that  it  has  so 
passed,  difficult,  yea,  almost  impossible,  for  party  ends,  and  by 
arbitrary  canons  of  evidence.  Yet  this.  Dr.  Carson  has  done. 
He  has  provided  rhetorical  and  logical  cords  and  chains,  for 
forcing  back  and  confining  to  the  primitive  sense,  all  usages  of 
the  word  /Da-Trri'^w  which  seem  to  have  left  it,  and  happy  is  that 
word  which  has  energy  enough  to  retain  its  inalienable  rights  of 
freedom,  after  he  has  laid  his  hands  upon  it. 

§  51.     Dr.  Carson'' s  Principles  subvert  themselves. 

But  happily.  Dr.  Carson  furnislies  the  means  of  destroying  his 
own  principles.  I  have  said  that  his  practice  is  against  his  own 
principles.     "  Does  he  not  admit  that  /Soc'titoj  means   to  dve  or 


§  51.       DR.  carson's  principles  subvert  themselves.         157 

color  when  it  is  applied  to  the  beard  and  hair  ?  And  is  it  im- 
possible to  dip  these  ?  Improbable  surely  it  is,  but  not  half  so 
much  as  the  immersion  of  couches."  Hear  his  reply.  "Here 
I  am  caught  at  last.  Surely  my  feet  are  entangled  in  my  own 
net.  But  let  the  reader  see  with  what  ease  I  can  extricate  my- 
self. The  assertion  of  my  antagonist  arises  from  his  want  of 
discrimination"  (of  course,  as  I  happen  to  differ  from  Dr.  Carson). 
^'  I  admit  that  (Sairrcjj  has  a  secondary  signification,  because  such 
secondary  signification  is  in  proof,  and  instances  may  be  alleged 
in  which  its  primary  meaning  is  utterly  impossible,"  e.  g.  the 
immersion  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse.  "  Show  me  any- 
thing like  this  with  respect  to  fSarrri^u),  and  I  will  grant  a  second- 
ary meaning.  And  as  soon  as  a  secondary  n^aning  is  ascer- 
tained on  sufficient  grounds,  I  do  not  demand  in  every  instance  a 
proof  of  impossibility  of  primary  meaning  before  the  secondary  is 
alleged.  The  competition  between  rival  meanings  must  then  be 
determined  on  other  grounds."  So  then  all  cases  of  probability 
are  to  be  set  aside  as  ciphers,  till  one  case  can  be  found  to  come 
up  to  Dr.  Carson's  canon  ;  and,  however  numerous  they  are,  to 
adduce  them  is  only  adding  ciphers  to  ciphers,  or  multiplying 
ciphers  by  ciphers.  But  as  soon  as  one  case  of  the  right  kind  is 
found,  lo  !  all  these  ciphers  at  once  assume  a  value.  Dr.  Carson 
is  now  willing  to  admit  them  on  lower  evidence.  If  he  had  not 
found  the  passage  as  to  tlie  lake  and  the  mouse,  or  some  one  like 
it,  he  must  have  believed  that  the  Indians  dip  their  beards  and 
hair,  not  that  they  dye  them — but  now  it  is  easy  to  see  that  they 
do  not  dip  them  but  dye  them.  Is  this  sound  philosophy  ?  If  it 
is.  Dr.  Carson  has  dug  a  mine  under  all  of  his  reply  to  me.  All 
my  cases  of  probability,  according  to  him,  are  as  yet  ciphers. 
But  I  may  find  the  lucky  passage  at  last — and  lo  !  they  spring 
into  life  and  put  in  their  claims  for  a  new  trial.  Can  Dr.  Carson 
refuse  it?  If  not,  then  all  his  labor  is  in  vain.  He  must  do  all 
his  work  over  again,  and  judge  on  new  principles  and  with  new 
results.     Let  us  try  and  see  if  we  cannot  find  a  passage. 


158  CASES.       CLINIC    BAPTISM.       PURIFYING   AGENTS.  §  52. 

§  52.     Cases.     Clinic  Baptism.     Purifying  Agents. 

In  Routh's  Reliquiae  Sacree,  vol.  iii.  p.  48,  occurs  a  passage 
from  Nicephorus,  describing  a  clinic  baptism,  u^dr''  d'n'o&avs7(f&(xi 
'jr^odSoxiixov  ovra  <ro  vSu^  airrjcTai  Xa^sn;'  6  8s  xal  h  aurji  rfj  xXivj}  jj 
hsTro  irs^i^u^svTa.  Syj&sv  ilSaziri^sv.  "  So  that  he,  expecting  to  die, 
asked  to  receive  the  water,  i.  e.  baptism.  And  he  baptized  him, 
even  upon  his  couch  upon  which  he  lay."  Did  he  then  take  up 
couch,  man  and  all,  and  immerse  them  ?  Dr.  Carson  must  say- 
yes,  if  it  is  possible — and  is  it  not  ?  But  stay,  there  is  still 
another  word,  its^i-xy&svra,  which  expressly  defines  the  mode.  It 
is  by  affusion  !  So  then  we  have  at  length  reached  the  mark, 
and  immersion  is  pointedly  excluded,  unless  affusion  or  sprinkling 
is  immersion.  And  now  Dr.  Carson's  labor  is  all  lost,  and  it  will 
be  doubly  and  trebly  lost  on  his  own  principles,  before  I  am 
through,  for  cases  equal  or  superior  to  this  in  strength,  abound. 
Will  Dr.  Carson  say,  that  the  phrase,  siyz  y^^ri  to  roiourov  fSaitTKfixa 
ovofxatfaj,  follows  1  It  does,  indeed,  and  implies  a  doubt  of  the 
propriety  of  calling  such  a  transaction  a  baptism  ;  but  could  there 
be  any  doubt  of  the  utter  impropriety  of  calling  it  an  immersion  ? 
Is  it,  indeed,  doubtful,  whether  pouring  or  sprinkling  is  immer- 
sion ?  Let  Dr.  Carson  look  at  his  own  canon,  and  can  he  doubt  ? 
What  then  was  the  doubt  ?  Whether  such  a  transaction  was  a 
real  purijication,  or  remission  of  sins.  This  was  the  point  on 
which  doubt  existed,  as  the  question  proposed  to  Cyprian,  and  his 
answer  alike  imply.  The  common  mode  of  purifying,  i.  e.  re- 
mitting sins,  was  by  immersion.  In  the  case  of  those  who  were 
in  danger  of  death,  another  mode  was  used — all  confessed  that  it 
was  another  mode.  Did  this,  could  it  raise  the  question,  whether 
two  modes,  by  the  confession  of  all  totally  unlike,  were  yet  so 
nearly  alike,  that  the  name  of  one  could  be  applied  to  the  other  ? 
Or  did  it  raise  this  question,  whether  the  new  mode  was  in  fact 
effectual  to  absolve  from  sin,  that  is,  was  it  an  effectual  purifica- 
tion, or  remission  of  sins  ?  It  did,  and  Cyprian  decided  that  it 
was.     So  then,  no  sense  but  purification  is  possible  in  this  case. 


§  52.  CASES.       CLINIC    BAPTISM.       PURIFYING    AGENTS.  159 

So  that  this  is  the  true  translation  of  the  passage  :  "  He,  expect- 
ing to  die,  asked  to  receive  the  water,  and  he  purified  him  by- 
affusion,  even  upon  the  bed  upon  which  he  lay — if,  indeed,  it  is 
proper  to  call  such  a  transaction  a  purification."  All  my  so-called 
ciphers  are,  therefore,  at  once  restored  to  their  full  and  true 
value. 

The  expression,  "  asked  to  receive  the  water,"  seems  singular. 
Its  singularity  will  cease  when  we  consider  another  usage  of  the 
fathers.  They  were  accustomed  to  call  water  itself  a  baptism. 
So  they  called  blood  a  baptism.  On  what  ground  ?  On  the 
same  ground  on  which  Christ  is  called  our  sanctification  and 
salvation,  because  he  sanctifies  and  saves  us.  On  this  ground 
they  called  water  a  purification,  because  it  purifies.  It  is  a 
purifier.  On  what  ground  could  they  call  water  an  immersion  ? 
It  is  not  an  i?nmerser.  It  does  not  immerse  us — others  immerse 
us  in  it,  and  it  purifies  us.  If  the  fact  that  others  immerse  us  in 
water,  justifies  us  in  calling  it  an  immersion,  there  is  the  same 
reason  for  calling  it  a  sprinkling  or  a  pouring — for  others  sprinkle 
us  with  it,  or  pour  it  on  us.  But  what  shall  we  say  of  blood  ? 
Was  there  a  rite  of  immersion  in  blood  ?  Men  were  purified  by 
blood,  but  it  was  by  sprinkling,  not  by  immersion.  Why  then 
call  it  an  immersion  ?  Here  all  possibility  of  the  sense  immer- 
sion is  cut  off.  The  truth  is,  that  by  a  natural  metonymy, 
means  of  purification  were  called  baptisms,  i.  e.  purifications, 
transferring  the  name  of  the  effect  to  the  cause. 

So  Tertullian  (p.  357.  Paris,  1634)  says,  speaking  of  the  wa- 
ter and  the  blood,  "  Hos  duo  baptismos  de  vulnere  perfossi  lateris 
emisit."  "  These  two  baptisms  he  poured  forth  from  the  wound 
of  his  pierced  side."  Did  he  mean  to  say  that  Christ  poured  forth 
two  immersions  from  his  wounded  side  1  or  that  he  sent  forth  two 
purifications  ?  So  Augustine  uses  such  passages  as  these,  "  bap- 
tismus,  id  est  aqua  :"  again,  "  baptismus,  id  est  aqua  salutis.' 
Isidore  Hispalensis  (Monumenta  Orthodoxographa,  p.  1774), 
speaking  of  the  water  that  flowed  from  the  side  of  Christ,  says, 
"  baptismus  est  aqua,"  and  gives  as  his  reason,   "  nullum  aliud 


160  EXPIATION  BY  SPRINKLING,  CALLED  BAPTISM.  §  53. 

est  elementum  quod  purgat  omnia."  That  is,  "  water  is  a  purifi- 
cation, because  there  is  no  other  element  that  purifies  all  things." 
Once  more  :  air  was  regarded  as  a  purifying  element  and  a  type 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  and  thunder  was  regarded  as  a  compound  of 
water  and  air.  The  philosophy  was  false.  But  to  what  language 
did  it  give  rise  ?  Maximus  (p.  449,  vol.  ii.  Paris,  1675)  says, 
that  sons  of  thunder  means  sons  of  Baptism.  The  reason  is,  r) 
^povrri  (TuviVraraj  sf  vSccTog  xou  ■Trvsujaarocr.  Thunder  is  composed 
of  water  and  air,  and  this  he  calls  ixuCrayw^ia  tou  fSaTCr'KfiJ.aTog, 
i.  e.  a  mystic  intimation  of  purification  ;  and  sons  of  thunder 
means,  on  this  ground,  sons  of  purification.  What  has  immer- 
sion to  do  with  all  this  ?  Again,  Anastasius  speaks  of  baptism  as 
poured  into  the  water-pots ;  and  the  water-pots  as  baptized  by 
pouring  baptism  into  them,  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  vol.  v.  p.  958. 
Does  he  mean  that  the  pots  were  immersed  by  pouring  immersion 
into  them,  or  that  they  were  purified  by  pouring  purification,  i.  e. 
water,  a  purifier,  into  them  ?  This  transaction  he  regards  as  a 
type  of  the  baptism  of  the  Gentiles.  Did  he  suppose  that  they 
were  to  be  immersed  by  pouring  immersion  upon  them  ? 

These  passages  are  in  themselves  sufficient  to  settle  the  case. 
But  as  Mr.  Carson  attaches  so  much  importance  to  the  proof  of 
an  impossibility  of  the  sense  of  immersion,  I  will  add  a  few  more 
passages. 

§  53.     Other  Cases.    Expiation  ly  Sprinkling  called  Baptism. 

The  passages  now  to  be  adduced  are  designed  to  prove  this  posi- 
tion ;  that  the  fathers  apply  the  word  (SaitTi^oj  to  denote  expia- 
tion by  sprinkling,  and,  indeed,  expiation  however  made,  so  that 
all  the  sprinklings  and  other  expiations  of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  and 
even  of  the  whole  heathen  world,  are  spoken  of  as  baptisms. 

Before  proceeding  to  adduce  the  passages,  it  will  add  to  the 
clearness  of  our  ideas,  to  recur  to  the  usages  of  language  on  the 
subject  of  sacrificial  purification,  or  expiation  by  atonement. 
We  have  seen,  then,  that  ideas  of  absolution,  expiation,  forgive- 


§  53.  EXPIATION  BY  SPRINKLING,  CALLED  BAPTISM.  161 

ness,  are  expressed  in  Greek  by  xa&a^i^u),  to  make  pure,  to  purify 
— also,  that  the  actual  removal  of  moral  pollution  by  the  truth 
and  the  Spirit  are  denoted  by  the  same  word.  Now,  in  spiritual 
baptism,  these  things  always  co-exist,  i.  e.  those  who  are  for- 
given are  always  made  pure  in  fact,  yet  there  is  a  logical  distinc- 
tion between  the  two  ideas,  and  the  word  x«^a^i(Jw  directs  the  mind 
sometimes  to  one  chiefly,  and  sometimes  to  the  other.  We  see  in 
English  the  same  idiom  in  our  use  of  the  words  clear  and  purge. 
They  have  a  legal  sense  denoting  to  absolve,  as  when  God  says 
he  will  not  clear  the  guilty  ;  and  sin  or  guilt  are  said  to  be  purged 
away  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  So  in  law,  we  read  of  purging  by 
an  oath  ;  and  of  compurgators,  who  freed  accused  persons  from 
charges  of  guilt  by  an  oath  in  their  favor.  In  such  cases  the  re- 
ference plainly  is  to  acquittal  from  charges,  not  to  an  actual  puri- 
fication of  the  heart.  The  same  idiom  exists  in  the  Latin  words 
lavo,  purgo — as  lavare,  or  purgare  peccatum — to  give  or  to  obtain 
pardon  for  sins.  Thus,  "  venis  precibus  lautum  peccatum" — you 
come  to  obtain  by  prayers  the  forgiveness  of  your  sins.  Literal- 
ly, you  come  by  prayers  to  wash,  purify,  or  purge,  your  sin. 

For  these  reasons  I  shall  not  hesitate,  in  translating  the  sacri- 
ficial sense  of  xa6a^i^u  and  ^a-TrTi^w,  to  use  as  equivalents  the 
words  purify,  purge,  wash,  absolve,  expiate,  atone  for,  clear,  ac- 
quit, forgive,  &c.,  as  the  case  may  require. 

The  most  striking  case  of  absolution  by  sprinkling  in  the  word 
of  God  is  undoubtedly  that  in  which  the  Israelites  were  saved  by 
the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  on  their  door 
posts.  It  was  established  to  commemorate  the  redemption  out  of 
Egypt,  and  was  the  great  type  of  atonement  by  the  sprinkling  of 
the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lamb  of  God  who  taketh  away  the 
sins  of  the  world.  In  Ex.  xii.  21-28,  Moses  directs  as  to  the 
sprinkling  of  the  blood  with  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  says,  when 
the  Lord  seeth  the  blood  upon  the  lintel  and  on  the  two  side 
posts,  the  Lord  will  pass  over  the  door,  and  will  not  suffer  the  de- 
stroyer to  come  into  your  houses  to  smite  you.  And  ye  shall  ob- 
serve this  thing  for  an  ordinance  for  ever.     This  is  the  only  case 


162  EXPIATION  BY  SPRINKLING,  CALLED  BAPTISM.  §  53. 

of  sprinkling  the  blood  of  a  lamb  by  hyssop  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, and  in  this  case  there  was  no  bathing,  washing,  or  immer- 
sion, as  some  allege  in  the  case  of  sprinkling  the  ashes  of  a  heifer 
by  hyssop.  I  am  so  particular  on  this  case,  because  Ambrose 
speaks  of  it  directly  as  a  baptism  under  the  law.  Much  contro- 
versy has  existed  as  to  what  the  divers  baptisms  were  of  which 
Paul  speaks.  Of  these  Ambrose  regards  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  a  lamb  with  a  bunch  of  hyssop  as  one, — vol.  ii.  p.  333. 
Paris,  1609.  Speaking  to  the  baptized,  he  says,  "  Ye  received 
white  garments  that  they  might  be  an  indication  that  ye  have  laid 
aside  the  garments  of  sin,  and  put  on  the  chaste  robes  of  inno- 
cence,  concerning  which  the  prophet  said,  thou  shalt  sprinkle  me 
with  hyssop  and  I  shall  be  cleansed.  Thou  shalt  wash  me,  and  1 
shall  be  whiter  than  snow."  Adsperges  me  hyssopo  et  munda- 
bor  ;  lavabis  me  et  supra  nivem  dealbabor.  Qui  enim  hapUzatur, 
et  secundum  legem,  et  secundum  evangelium  videtur  esse  mun- 
datus.  Secundum  legem  quia  hyssopi  fasciculo  Moyses  adsper- 
gebat  sanguinem  agni  ;  secundum  evang.  etc.  "  For,  he  who  is 
baptized,  both  according  to  the  law  and  according  to  the  gospel,  is 
made  clean.  According  to  the  law,  because  Moses,  with  a  bunch 
of  hyssop,  sprinkled  the  blood  of  a  lamb.  According  to  the  gos- 
pel," &c.  Here  his  main  position  is  that  baptized  persons  are 
7nade  clean,  both  according  to  the  law  and  according  to  the  gospel. 
Of  course  there  were  baptized  j^ersons  under  the  law.  Of  these 
baptized  persons  Ambrose  gives  one  example,  to  prove  his  main 
position.  Who  were  they  ?  This  is  the  point.  Were  they  per- 
sons immersed  ?  or  were  they  persons  purified,  i.  e.  expiated  by 
the  sprinkling  of  blood  1  Plainly  the  latter  ;  for  he  refers  to  a 
case  in  which  there  was  nothing  but  purification,  i.  e.  expiation, 
by  sprinkling  the  blood  of  a  lamb,  and  he  does  not  even  allude  to 
immersion  at  all ;  and  from  these  facts  he  proves  that  baptized  per- 
sons were  made  clean.  All  this  is  plain,  and  forcible,  and  logi- 
cal, if  baptize  means  to  purify,  i.  e.  to  expiate  ;  on  any  other 
supposition  it  is  of  no  force  at  all.  For  suppose  that  Moses  did 
sprinkle  the  blood  of  a  lamb  on  the  posts  of  the  doors,  and  suppose 


§  53.  EXPIATION  BY  SPRINKLING,  CALLED  BAPTIS3I.  163 

that  it  did  make  expiation,  and  thus  purify  the  people  and  make 
them  clean,  it  only  proves  that  expiated  persons  were  made  clean  ; 
biit  how  does  it  prove  that  ijnmersed  persons  were  made  clean  ac- 
cording to  the  law  ?  It  does  not,  it  cannot — and  thus  the  sense 
immerse  is  excluded,  and  no  sense  but  purify  or  expiate  is  possi- 
ble. This,  then,  is  the  sense  of  the  passage  :  "  He  who  is  expiat- 
ed (or  absolved)  is  made  clean,  both  according  to  the  law,  and  ac- 
cording to  the  gospel.  According  to  the  law,  because  Moses,  in 
order  to  make  expiation,  took  a  bunch  of  hyssop  and  sprinkled  the 
blood  of  a  lamb,  and  according  to  the  prophet,  this  makes  clean  (ad- 
sperges  me  hyssopo  et  mundabor) ;  according  to  the  gospel,  be- 
cause he  is  made  whiter  than  snow  whose  sins  are  forgiven.'''  Su- 
pra nivem  dealbatur  cui  culpa  dimittitur.  How  clearly  then  does 
this  passage  exclude  immersion  as  the  meaning  of  baptism,  and 
establish  purification,  or  the  remission  of  sins,  as  its  religious 
sense.  Tiie  same  sense  we  shall  soon  see  in  the  formal  defini- 
tions of  Athanasius,  Zonaras,  and  Phavorinus.  It  is  seen  no  less 
plainly  in  another  passage  of  Ambrose  :  "  Unde  sit  haptisma  nisi 
de  cruce  Christi,  de  morte  Christi  ?"  vol.  i.  p.  356.  "  Whence 
is  remission  of  sins,  except  from  the  cross  of  Christ,  from  the  death 
of  Christ  ?"  "  Ibi  est  omne  mysterium,  quia  pro  te  passus  est. 
In  ipso  redemeris,  in  ipso  salvaberis."  "  There  is  all  the  mystery, 
because  he  suffered  for  thee.  In  him  thou  shalt  be  redeemed  ;  in 
him  thou  shalt  be  saved."  How  beautifully  all  of  this  applies  to 
the  remission  of  sins.  It  is  the  remission  of  sins,  it  is  not  immer- 
sion, that  comes  from  the  cross  and  death  of  Christ.  Hence,  we 
need  not  wonder  to  hear  him  speak  of  expiation  by  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  blood  of  the  paschal  lamb  as  a  baptism,  for  it  was  a 
remission  of  sins  ;  and  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  paschal 
lamb  was  the  great  type  of  ihe  sprinking  of  the  blood  of  the  Lamb 
of  God  who  taketh  away  the  sins  of  the  world.  Here  then,  be- 
yond all  doubt,  expiation  by  sprinkling  is  considered  as  a  baptism 
under  the  law,  and  is  one  of  the  Sia(po^oi  ^aitrid [t^oi  spoken  of  by 
Paul  in  Heb.  ix.  10. 

Nor  is  this  the  only  case.     Cyril  of  Alexandria,  on  Isa.  iv.  4, 
vol.  ii.  Paris,  1538,  speaks  of  the  sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  a 


164  EXPIATION  BY  SPRINKLING,  CALLED  BAPTISM.  §  53. 

heifer  as  a  baptism.  He  is  denying  the  power  of  mere  external 
rites  to  purify  the  soul,  and  says,  f3s(3a<ffr'Kiii.s&a  i^iv  yd^  ovx  iv 
vSari  /ufjLvw,  dXX'  ouJs  (f-n'oSc,)  (JajxaXswj — dXX'  iv  ctvSuiJ.aTi  cc/'kaJ  xai 
-jru^i.  "  We  have  been  baptized  not  with  mere  water,  nor  yet 
with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  but  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire.'"' 
This  implies  that  externally  there  was  a  baptism  by  water ;  and 
therefore,  just  as  clearly,  that  there  was  an  external  baptism  by 
the  ashes  of  a  heifer.  What  was  this  ?  Let  Paul  answer  :  "The 
ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  imrify- 
ing  of  thejlesh.'''  If  any  one  should  say  there  was  a  rite  of 
washing  or  bathing  connected  with  sprinkling ;  I  answer — 
Cyril,  in  a  parenthetic  explanation  after  ^afj^ocXswj,  evolves  his 
own  meaning  too  clearly  to  admit  of  denial — s^^avr/rffxs^a  6c  <^oj 
/xo'vrjv  Trig  doL^xlg  xa^a^orrira  xa&u  cpridiv  6  ^Mxa^iog  JlaCXo^.  "  We  are 
sprinkled  to  purify  the  flesh  alone,  as  says  the  blessed  Paul."  From 
this  it  is  plain  that  the  word  ^aitTi^cjj  is  here  limited  to  the  sprink- 
ling of  the  unclean  person  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer.  And  no  reference 
is  made  to  any  rite  of  washing  or  bathing,  even  if  one  existed. 

According  to  Cyril  then,  the  sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  a  heifer 
was  an  external  baptism,  but  it  did  not  effect  real  and  spiritual  pu- 
rification, any  more  than  a  mere  washing  in  water.  The  sprink- 
ling of  an  unclean  person  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  was,  there- 
fore, another  of  the  SioLcpo^oi  (Bairr'KJi^oi  of  which  Paul  speaks. 

The  same  Cyril,  on  Isa.  i.  16,  "  wash  you,  make  you  clean," 
considers  it  as  a  command  to  baptize,  and  says,  rouro  xai  6  itaXm 
vojxo^  a.\)T(j\g  wj  sv  dxlaig  ^istu-ttou,  s(p'o  yd^,  Num.  viii.  6,  7.  "  This 
the  ancient  law  imaged  forth  to  them  as  in  shadows,  for  he  said, 
Take  the  Levites  and  cleanse  them,  and  thus  shalt  thou  do 
unto  them  to  cleanse  them  :  sprinkle  water  of  purfying  on 
them,"  &c.  There  is  no  immersion  or  bathing  here.  But 
sprinkling  alone,  sl^a  itoiov  IVi  to  vSu^  rov  d^vjcr|uiou  SiSol^bi  Xsyojv  6 
<fo(pu)raros  UoLvXcg,  Heb.  ix.  13,  14.  "  What  the  water  of  purifi- 
cation is,  the  most  wise  Paul  shall  teach,  saying  :  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 
flesh."  In  this  Cyril  saw  baptism  imaged  forth  as  in  a  shadow  ; 
and  this  passage  throws  light  on  the  preceding,  and  shows  that  in 


§  53.  EXPIATION  BY  SPRINKLING,  CALLED  BAPTISM.  165 

all  the  various  sprinklings  of  the  old  law,  he  saw  some  of  the 
^mcpopoj  ^aifTK^ixoi,  of  which  Paul  speaks. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Tertullian  speaks  of  the  sprinklings  and  expi- 
ations of  the  heathen  world,  as  the  Devil's  baptism,  rivalling  the 
ordinances  of  God.  (De  Baptismo,  p.  257.  Paris,  1634.)  He 
first  unfolds  the  purifying  power  of  water  (as  we  have  seen  he 
calls  it  a  baptism  on  this  ground),  and  then  the  various  uses  made 
of  it  by  the  Gentile  world.  "  At  the  sacred  rites  of  Isis,  or  Mithra, 
they  are  initiated  by  a  washing  [lavacro]  ;  they  carry  out  their 
gods  with  washings  [lavationibus]  ;  they  expiate  villas,  houses, 
temples,  and  whole  cities,  by  sprinkling  with  water  carried  around. 
Certainly  they  are  purified  [tinguntur]  in  the  Apollinarian  and 
Eleusinian  rites,  and  they  say  that  they  do  this  to  obtain  regene- 
ration, and  to  escape  the  punishment  of  their  perjuries.  Also 
among  the  ancients,  whoever  had  stained  himself  with  murder, 
expiated  himself  with  purifying  water.  In  view  of  these  things 
we  see  the  zeal  of  the  devil  in  rivalling  the  things  of  God,  since 
he  also  practises  baptism  among  his  own  people — [cum  et  ipse 
baptismum  in  suis  exercet.]  What  can  be  found  like  this  ?  The 
polluted  one  purifies  [immundus  emundat].  The  destroyer  de- 
livers. He  who  is  under  condemnation,  absolves  others  [damnatus 
absolvit].  He  will  destroy,  forsooth,  his  own  work,  washing 
away  the  sins  which  he  inspires." 

Tertullian  here  traces  the  purifier  water  through  all  its  uses  in 
the  heathen  world  in  purifying,  whether  by  sprinkling,  or  in  any 
other  way,  for  absolution,  or  for  cleansing.  And  he  sums  it  all 
up  as  the  Devil's  baptism.  Words  denoting  sprinkling,  or  pu- 
rification, or  absolution,  pervade  the  whole  passage — as  lavacrum, 
lavatio,  aspergo,  purgo,  expio,  abluo,  emundo,  absolvo,  diluo.  But 
no  word  occurs  denoting  of  necessity  immersion.  Dr.  Carson  may 
refer  to  tingo.  I  know  that  he  has  said  in  his  work  on  baptism, 
p.  55,  "  Tingo  expresses  appropriately  dipping  and  dyeing,  and 
these  only."  Dr.  Carson  says  this  with  his  usual  accuracy. 
Ovid  was  of  a  difierent  opinion.  Speaking  of  the  ocean  in  a  storm, 
he  says,  "videturaspergine  tingere  nubes." — Metamorph.  xi.  497, 


166  EXPIATION  BY  SPRINKLING,  CALLED  BAPTISM.  §  53. 

498.  Did  Ovid  mean  that  "  the  ocean  seems  to  dye  the  clouds 
with  spray,"  or  "  to  immerse  them  with  spray  ?"  He  means  plain- 
ly "to  sprinkle  them  with  spray."  He  also  uses  the  expression, 
"tingere  corpus  aqua  sparsa."  (Fast.  iv.  790.  See  Gesner  on 
tingo.)  Does  this  mean  "  to  color  or  to  immerse  the  body  by  sprin- 
kled  water  ?"  And  what  mean  the  common  expressions,  tingi  nar- 
do,  tingi  Pallade,  tingi  oleo  ?  Is  oil  a  coloring  substance  ?  or  was  it 
customary  to  be  dipped  in  oil  1  We  read  of  anointing  with  oil,  or  of 
pouring  oil  on  the  head.  Who  has  recorded  the  custom  of  dipping 
in  oil  ?  Hilarius  too,  on  Acts  xix.  4,  speaking  of  a  spurious  bap- 
tism, says,  "  non  tincti  sed  sordidati  sunt."  Here  the  antithesis  de- 
mands of  us  to  translate,  "  they  were  not  purified  but  polluted.^' 
Tingo,  then,  means  to  sprinkle,  to  wet  or  moisten,  to  wash,  to  pu- 
rify— and  in  reference  to  baptism,  this  last  is  its  appropriate  sense. 
No  word,  then,  occurs,  denoting  immersion.  All  kinds  of  purifi- 
cation and  expiation  are  spoken  of,  including  prominently  those 
by  sprinkling,  and  all  are  summed  up  as  the  Devil's  baptism,  i.e. 
the  Devil's  purification  or  absolution — and  the  closing  contrast 
rests  for  all  its  force  on  assigning  to  the  word  this  sense. 

Nor  was  this  idea  of  the  Devil's  baptism  rivalling  God's,  pe- 
culiar to  Tertullian.  It  is  found  also  in  Justin  Martyr  and  Am- 
brose. After  describing  Christian  baptism,  Justin  says,  xai  to 
XouT^ov  5ri  toCit'  d,xou(fa\rsg  o\  Saiiiovsg  Siol  tov    ir^ocprjrov  xsx'/)^uy/x£vov 

"  The  daemons  hearing  of  this  washing,  or  purification,  proclaimed 
by  the  prophet,  caused  those  entering  into  their  temples  to  sprinkle 
themselves."  He  then  mentions  that  they  also  used  an  entire 
washing  of  the  body  in  certain  cases.  If  the  daemons  aimed  to 
rival  God's  purification,  they  would  naturally  use  sprinkling  as 
well  as  bathing,  for  the  Jews  used  both.  But  if  they  were  merely 
trying  to  imitate  God's  immersion,  why  did  they  use  sprinkling 
at  all  ?  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  as  we  have  seen,  takes  the 
washing  of  hands  by  Telemachus  and  the  Jews,  as  a  baptism. 
And  Justin  as  plainly  regards  sprinkling  as  part  of  the  Devil's 
baptism. 


§  53.  EXPIATION  BY  SPRINKLING,  CALLED  BAPTISM.  167 

Ambrose,  taking  a  general  view  of  Jewish  and  Heathen  abso- 
lutions, thus  sums  up  the  whole  matter — vol.  ii.  p.  355. 

Multa  sunt  genera  baptismatum — sed  unum  baptisma  clamat 
Apostolus.  Quare  ?  Sunt  baptismata  gentium,  sed  non  sunt 
baptismata.  Lavacra  sunt,  baptismata  esse  non  possunt.  Caro 
lavatur,  non  culpa  diluitur,  immo  in  illo  lavacro  contrahitur. 
Erant  autem  baptismata  Judseorum,  alia  superflua,  alia  in  figura." 
In  order  to  translate  this  passage,  we  must  notice  that  it  is  a  con- 
trast of  ineffectual  purifications  with  real  purifications,  i.  e.  re- 
missions of  sins.     I  translate  it  thus  : 

"  There  are  many  kinds  of  purifications  ;  but  the  Apostle  pro- 
claims one  purification.  Why  ?  There  are  purifications  of  the 
nations,  but  they  are  not  purifications  (i.  e.  remissions  of  sin). 
Washings  they  are — purifications  (i.  e.  remissions  of  sin)  they 
cannot  be.  The  body  is  washed,  but  sin  is  not  washed  away, 
nay,  in  that  washing  sin  is  contracted.  There  were  also  purifi- 
cations  of  the  Jews  :  some  superfluous,  others  typical."  Any  one 
can  see  that  the  sefise  of  this  whole  passage  turns  on  assigning  to 
baptismata  in  the  second  member  of  the  antithesis,  the  sacrificial 
sense  of  xa&a^Kffxog,  i.  e.  absolution,  or  forgiveness  of  sins.  The 
purifications  of  the  Gentiles  were  not  purifications  for  this  reason  ; 
they  did  not  wash  away  sins.  This  is  a  good  reason  for  denying 
to  them  the  name  purification  in  its  highest  sense.  But  it  is  no 
reason  for  denying  that  they  were  immersions.  They  could  be 
immersions,  whether  they  remitted  sins  or  not — but  they  could 
not  be  real  purifications  unless  they  remitted  sins.  If  any  one 
wishes  to  feel  the  full  force  of  this,  let  him  try  to  translate  the 
passage,  and  use  immersions  instead  of  purifications. 

"  They  are  immersions,  but  immersions  they  cannot  be,"  Why 
not?  "  They  are  washings,  immersions  they  cannot  be."  Why 
not  ?  "  The  body  is  washed,  but  sin  is  not  washed  away  ;  nay, 
in  that  washing  it  is  contracted."  But  how  does  this  prove  that 
they  are  not  immersions  ?  It  proves  that  they  are  not  purifica- 
tions. With  immersions  it  has  nothing  to  do.  The  sense  purify 
is  then  fully  and  incontrovertibly  established. 


168  PASSAGE  FROM  PROCLUS.  §  54. 

§  54.     Passage  from  Proclus. 

Let  us  now  look  at  a  beautiful  passage  in  Proclus,  which  pre- 
sents this  import  of  the  word  to  the  mind  in  various  relations,  and 
with  the  clearness  of  a  sunbeam — p.  280.  Rome,  1630.  It  is 
in  an  oration  on  the  Epiphany,  and  is  an  expansion  of  the  ideas 
contained  in  the  reply  of  John  to  Christ :  "  I  have  need  to  be  bap- 
tized of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me  ?"  In  expanding  this  ques- 
tion, the  Fathers  took  great  delight,  and  their  expansion  always 
turned  on  the  idea,  how  can  the  polluted  purify  the  pure  ?  How 
can  one,  under  condemnation,  acquit  his  judge  ?  'ttoj^  ToXjXTjtfw 
(SuitTicfai  (fs  ;  "TToTS  <n'uP  vito  'XP^'^o^  xaScti^srai ;  'Xors  'n'rj'kog  crXuvsj 
if'^'yrjv  ;  m'Cdg  /Sa-rTTiVw  rov  x^iri^v  6  vitsC&vvos  ^  'ffCJs  (Bairr'Ktu  (fs  6s(f- 
itoTo.  ;  jmojjxov  ou  /SXsVw  £v  tfoj.  ryj  xara^a  rov  ^Ada^  (j\)')(^  U'n'sViitfa^, 
(Xjxa^Ti'av  oux  zifo'yf\(iag.  Tluig  (Sadradzi  y)  yy]  o^wrfa  rov  tou^  ayys- 
Xouj  ayia^ovra,  Wo  dv^^o^itou  afxa^TwXou  l3ci'n'Ti^6ii.svov  ;  'n'wg  (fs 
I3a<}fri(fu  BidiroTOi,  ToXg  sx  ysvi(fsus  jaoXutfjxor^  ou  '7r'^oo'o|UL»X>jfl'avTa ; 
irQg  ouv  s^w  xara^^vrrog  av&^Cjjm'og  a^vtVw  &s6v  fl  Gsov  dvajuoapri^Tov ; 
l3a'jtrKfr^v  d<iti(fTSi\ag  (JsV-n'ora,  ou  -^ra^^jKoutfaj  rov  tfou  ii^o(fTky[kaTog. 
I  have  abbreviated  this  passage  somewhat,  and  yet,  because  of  its 
beauty,  and  varied  use  of  language,  have  retained  more  than  I 
usually  quote.  Its  main  force  lies  in  the  expression,  how  shall 
I,  who  am  under  sentence  of  condemnation,  purify,  i.  e.  acquit 
my  judge  ?  -rfw^  /Sa-TrTiVw  tov  x^jti^v  6  h'Jtsv&xjvog,  How  absurd,  in 
such  a  passage,  to  inquire,  how  shall  I,  a  culprit,  immerse  my 
judge  ?  But  take  /^a-TrTjVw  in  the  sense  purify,  or  acquit,  and  it 
at  once  harmonizes  the  whole  passage.  Nor  is  this  all;  the  laws 
of  antithesis  demand  this  sense.  Let  us  thus  translate  it.  "  How 
shall  I  dare  to  purify  thee  ?  When  is  the  fire  purified  by  the 
stubble  ?  When  does  the  clay  wash  the  fountain  ?  How  shall 
I,  a  culprit,  purify  (or  acquit)  my  judge  ?  How  shall  I  purify 
thee,  O  Lord  ? .  I  see  no  fault  in  thee.  Thou  hast  not  fallen 
under  the  curse  of  Adam  :  thou  hast  committed  no  sin.  How 
will  the  earth  endure  to  see  him,  who  makes  pure  the  angels, 
purified  by  a  sinful  man  ?     How  shall  I  purify  thee,  O  Lord, 


§  54.  PASSAGE  FROM  PROCLUS.  169 

who  hast  never  participated  in  the  pollutions  of  birth  ?  How,  then, 
shall  I,  a  polluted  man,  purify  God  ?  The  sinless  God  ?  Thou 
hast  sent  me  as  a  purifier,  hast  thou  not  disregarded  thine  own 
command  ?"  On  this  last  sentence,  the  editor  says  :  the  sense  is, 
as  I  infer,  thou  hast  made  me  a  purifier,  that  I  should  baptize, 
that  is,  purify,  from  pollution,  and  expiate  those  defiled  by  sin. 
But  since  thou  art  polluted  by  no  sins,  why  dost  thou  command 
that  I  should  expiate  and  wash  thee,  if  there  is  nothing  in  thee  to 
be  washed  away  ?  That  is  beyond  the  province  of  a  baptist,  i.  e. 
a  purifier.  I  have  need  to  be  purified  of  thee.  The  interchange 
of  a^v/cTw  and  (Baitrldu)  in  carrying  out  the  antithesis  is  no  less 
striking.  He  uses  itOig  /Da'TTTiVoj  till  near  the  close,  and  then  ex- 
changes it  in  the  question  for  a^vjVw — ttwj  a^vjVw  @sov  ;  how  shall 
I  purify  God — the  sinless  God.  Yet,  who  does  not  see  that  the 
import  of  the  question  must  be  the  same  throughout  the  whole 
passage  ?  So  the  antithesis  tov  a^ia^ovra  dyyiXovg  (oairnt^oixsvov 
Ctto  (xv^^c^Wou  aiJMPTuiXov,  requires  /Sa'rri^w  and  ayia^(^j  to  be  taken 
in  the  same  sense.  This  passage  admirably  illustrates  the  state- 
ments in  §  28,  2.  Giving  lo  /Sa-Trri'^w  the  sense  to  purify,  the 
passage  is  inimitably  beautiful  and  brilliant.  It  loses  all  its 
beauty  the  moment  we  assign  to  it  any  other  sense. 

Have  I  not  adduced  evidence  enough  ?  In  any  common  case 
it  would  be  enough,  and  more  than  enough.  But  strange  as  it 
may  seem,  the  life  of  a  whole  denomination  depends  upon  denying 
this  sense  of  this  word.  Dr.  Carson  says,  if  it  were  optional,  he 
would  never  immerse.  So  says  Mr.  Hague.  And  if  this  mean- 
ing is  established,  all  pretext  for  a  separate  Bible  Society  is 
taken  away.  Nor  will  any  valid  reason  for  separate  organic 
action  remain.  So  fundamental  an  error  will  not  easily  die.  It 
has,  indeed,  no  logical  life ;  but  it  has  an  organic  life  of  tremen- 
dous power.  In  numerous  periodicals  this  denomination  utters 
its  voice.  Hundreds  of  thousands  hang  on  them  for  the  truth  ; 
and  if  they  see  it  not  in  them,  will  not  see  it  at  all.  They  are 
the  leaders.  It  is  expected  of  them  to  defend  the  cause.  And 
temptations,  almost  infinite,  urge  them  not  to  see  the  truth.     Be- 

8 


170  DEFINITIONS  OF  BAIITIZQ  AND  BAIITISMA.  §  55. 

fore  such  temptations,  they  will  fall,  unless  God,  in  his  mercy, 
aid  them  by  a  full  illumination  of  his  Spirit.  So  may  it  be. 
But  as  things  are,  the  work  of  adducing  evidence  must  still  go 
on. 

§  55.     Definitions  of  (Bam'T't^u  and  l36i'n:"TKfixa. 

T  remark,  then,  that  the  sense  to  purify  is  established  by  direct 
definitions  of  the  Fathers,  and  of  Greek  Lexicographers,  given  in 
a  manner  most  explicit  and  unambiguous. 

On  this  point  I  shall   first  quote  Basil.     He  is  commenting  on 
Is.  iv.  4.     "  O-rj  sx-TrXuvsr  jcj^jo^  tov  ^vifov  tCjv  uIwv  xa/  rojv  ^uya-rs^wv 
2jojv,  xai  TO  aifxa  '  Is^outfaXTj.a  ixxadapisT  sx  (xs'tfou  ccu-rwv  sv  -TrvsufxaTj 
x^itfsoj^  xai  sv  'jrvsjiiuTi  xavcfsug.     "  The  Lord  shall  wash  away  the 
filth  of  the  sons  and  the  daughters  of  Zion,  and  shall  purge  the 
blood  of  Jerusalem  from  the  midst  of  them,  by  the  spirit  of  judg- 
ment, and  by  the  spirit  of  burning."     On  this  he   remarks,  T^a- 
vCJg  TO,  dvra  roj  '  Iwavvrj  o  Xoyog  'Tf^oayo^svsi  ifs^l  toC  xu^iou  Xiyovri  oVi 
avTog  vixoig  l^cLiirldzi  iv  toj  ifvsjfjMri  a^j'w  xai  Tfv^i  •   irspt  8s  solvtov  on 
iyC)  fxsv  v^ias  fdairri^o  sv  vSan  slg  jasravoiav.      "  Plainly  the  word 
foretells  the  same  things  concerning  the  Lord,  by  John,  who  says, 
that  he   shall   baptize  you  by   the   Holy  Spirit  and  fire  ;    but, 
concerning  himself,  he   says,  I,  indeed,  baptize   you  with   water 
unto  repentance."     In  one   series  of  expressions,  the  words   are, 
•TrXuvw   and   ixxa^a^i^u — in  the   other,  fzaitri^cj^.     Basil   says  that 
the  import  of  both  modes  of  expression  is  plainly  the  same.     Nor 
is  this  all.      He  proceeds,  s-tts/  yovv  djx^oTS^a  tfuv/jsj-'Sv  o  xu^iog  to  ts 
£|  vbarog  slg  y.s-ra.voiav,  xal  to  sx  itvcuiiarog  Pig  dvu'ysvvri(fi'j,  xai  o  Xo'^'oj 
drnddSTcii  afxqjoTSf'a  to,  /SarTjcffji-aTa  iiTj'n'ors  r^slg  sldiv  a]  iirivoiai  rov 
(SaifriffixuTog.     "  Since,  then,  the  Lord  has  connected  both  (bap- 
tisms), namely,  that   from  water  to  repentance,  i.  e.  John's,  and 
that  from  the  Spirit  to   regeneration,  i.  e.  Christ's,  and  the  word 
(Is.    iv.  4)  alludes  to  both   baptisms  (i.  e.  Christian  baptism,  and 
that  of  fire),   are    there   not  three   significations  of  baptism  ?" 
Here  he  first  speaks  of  baptisms  in  the  plural  (i.  e.  the  baptisms 
of  John,  of  Christ,  and  of  fire),  and  as,  in  some  respects,  alike,  in 


§  55.  DEFINITIONS  OF  BAIITIZO  AND  BAHTISMA.  171 

others  unlike  ;  and  this  seems  to  call  for  a  definition  of  the  senses 
of  the  word.  He  says  they  are  three,  and  proceeds  to  give  them. 
(1)  0,  TS  Tov  ^■j'n'ov  xa^a^id^hg  (2)  xa/  t)  ^io,  tou  irvsCp^arog  ava^sw^itfi^ 
(3)  xai  7]  sv  Tw  -Tfu^/  x^iVsw^  /Satfavoj.  1.  Purification  from  filth. 
2.  Regeneration  by  the  Spirit.  3.  Trial  or  proof  in  the  fire  of 
the  judgment.  These  are  three  kinds  of  purification.  One,  ex- 
ternal by  water — the  next,  internal  by  the  Spirit,  i.  e.  regenera- 
tion— the  other,  a  purgation  in  the  fires  of  the  judgment  day.  To 
this  purgation  by  fire,  the  Fathers  referred  the  words  of  Paul : 
"  Ever}'^  man's  work  shall  be  made  manifest,  for  the  day  shall 
declare  it,  because  it  shall  be  revealed  by  fire  ;  and  the  fire  shall 
try  every  man's  work,  of  what  sort  it  is  ;  if  any  man's  work 
shall  be  burned,  he  shall  sufier  loss  ;  but  he  himself  shall  be 
saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire."  The  man  saved  by  fire,  is  saved  by 
Basil's  third  kind  of  purification.  Concerning  this,  Hilarius  says, 
^^  per  ignem  purgatus  fiat  salvus,"  being  purified  by  fire,  he  may  be 
saved.  Hence,  Basil  refers  a  part  of  the  purification  to  this 
world,  and  a  part  to  the  next,  but  considers  it  all  as  baptism  in 
one  way  or  another,  wtfrs  to  julsv  ixitXvvsiv  'n'^og  ro^v  Cods  dit6&s(fiv  TYjg 
afxa^Tja^  Xajx/3avscfdai,  to  Ss  itvEv^y^aTi  x^icfsug  xai  T^vsvii^uTi  xa6(fsug 
'Jf^og  T-rfi  sv  TW  fjLs'XXovTj  a/wvi  (Jia,  TOU  -Tru^oj  (^oxii^arfiav.  "  So  that 
the  expression  to  wash  away  (in  Is.  iv.  4)  refers  to  the  laying 
aside  sins  in  this  world  (by  Christian  baptism),  but  the  expression, 
spirit  of  judgment  and  spirit  of  burning,  refers  to  trial  by  fire  in 
the  world  to  come."  How  unlike  all  this  is  to  immersion,  I  need 
not  say.  Can  anything  be  more  to  the  point  ?  Is  it  not  enough 
to  say,  that  to  wash  away  filth,  and  to  purge,  in  Is.,  and  to  bap- 
tize in  the  New  Testament,  are  equivalent  modes  of  expression  ? 
Is  it  not  enough  that  he  uses  sx  after  (oaitrKfixa,  a  preposition  at 
war  with  the  idea  immerse  ?  For  we  are  not  immersed  s^  v6a. 
Tog,  but  5v  vdari — but  we  are  purified  i^  vSarog  xai  ix  m'vsoij.arog,  sx 
denoting  that  from  which  the  purification  proceeds,  and  by  which 
it  is  produced.  Is  it  not  enough,  that  he  speaks  of  baptisms  in 
the  plural,  and  refers  two  to  this  world,  and  one  to  the  next,  and 
then  goes  on  to  define  three  corresponding  senses  of  the  word,  and 


172  DEFINITIONS  OF  BAIITIZS^  AND  BAXITISMA.  §  55. 

that  each  sense  is  a  purification,  and  neither  an  immersion  ? 
What  more  could  be  asked,  or  received,  if  asked  ?  Surely  he 
who  will  not  believe  this,  would  not  believe,  even  though  old  Basil 
himself  were  to  arise  from  the  dead,  and  proclaim  on  the  house 
tops,  the  meaning  of  (Boiitri^u)  is  to  purify  ! 

Nor  is  this  all.  Athanasius  testifies  explicitly  to  the  same 
effect.  Speaking  of  the  expression  :  "  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,"  he  expressly  states  that  it  has  the  sacrificial 
sense  to  purify,  i.  e.  to  remit  sins. — Montfaucon,  Collectio  nova 
Patrum  Grsecorum.  Vol.  2,  p.  27.  Paris,  1706 — and  to  express 
this  sense,  he  uses  xa^a^j'^w.  His  words  are  :  To  auTo^  v^J^ois 
/^aTTTiVsj  sv  -Trvtu/xarj  ay/w,  rovro  StiXoT  oVi  xa&a^^sT  vixag.  "  The 
expression,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  means  this, 
that  he  shall  purify,  i.  e.  absolve  you,  or  remit  your  sins." 
That  this  is  the  sense  is  plain,  for  he  adds,  SiSl  to  jxqi  6vva(fdai 
TO  TQv  'Iwavvou  /3a.-7r'Tio'|xa  tovto  m'oirjffai,  dXXdt  to  tou  X^io'tou  6j  xoci 
dcpisvoLi  (xjxa^Tia^  s^ourfjav  s;)^si.  ''Because  the  purification  of  John 
could  not  do  this,  but  that  of  Christ,  who  has  power  to  forgive  sins." 
This  last  expression  fixes  the  sense  of  xa&a^isT,  and  thus  the  sense 
of  /Sa'TTTiVsj,  to  remission  of  sins,  or  sacramental  purification. 
Athanasius,  therefore,  directly  testifies,  that  this  is  the  sense. 
Let  us  hear  no  more,  then,  of  immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Athanasius  declares,  that  purification  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the 
sense. 

Once  more  the  lexicographers.  Zonaras  and  Phavorinus  define 
/3(X'7rTi(J'(xa  thus,  on^zd^g  afxa^Tjwv  dC  vdarog  xal  "TrvsjfxaTO^ — t]  avsx- 
XoyirfTof  a(pS(fig  ajxa^TJOJV — rj  Xvcfis  <5's(7'^oG'  sx  (piXa)j§p(jj7tiag  (5's^opy],asvy]. 
"  The  remission  of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit — the  unspeakable 
forgiveness  of  sins — the  loosing  of  the  bond  (i.  e.  of  sin),  granted 
by  the  love  of  God  towards  man."  These  are  obviously  all  equiva- 
lents of  sacrificial  purification,  i.  e.  remission  of  sins.  They 
would  be  perfect  definitions  of  xa^a^itf/xo^.*  Are  not  two  words 
synonymous  to  which  the   same  definitions  can   be   truly  given  ? 

*  See  the  passage  from  Ambrose  §  53,  at  the  end. 


§  55.  DEFINITIONS  OF  BAIITIZfi  AND  BAIITISMA.  173 

These  definitions  are  not  the  mere  opinions  of  Zonaras  and  Pha- 
yorinus.  They  are  taken  from  the  ideas  of  the  Fathers,  and 
nearly  in  their  words.  They  also  give  definitions  of  the  moral 
sense  of  l3a<n'Ti(f^M,  i.  e.  moral  purification — thus,  *;  kxovcfiog 
(fwrayrj  if^hg  rov  0£ov  OeUTs'^ou  /b'l'ou,  '/j  avuXxidig  {avaik.'f\-]^ig  in  Phavo- 
rinus)  •\'^'xrtg  zrd  to  x^skrov.  "  The  voluntary  arrangement  of  a 
new  life  towards  God,  or  according  to  the  will  of  God.  The  re- 
leasing, or  recovery  of  the  soul  (i.  e.  from  sin),  for  that  which  is 
better,  i.  e.  holiness." 

All  this  certainly  denotes  moral  purification,  or  the  restoration 
of  the  soul  to  a  new  and  holy  life.  It  is  equivalent  to  Basil's 
second  sense,  dva.j'svvYj(fig.  These  last  definitions  would  be  perfect 
definitions  of  xa&a.^idixog,  as  denoting  moral  purification.  Again, 
I  ask :  Are  not  two  words  synonymous  to  which  the  same  defini- 
tions can  be  truly  given  1  Nor  are  these  last  definitions  the  mere 
opinions  of  Zonaras  and  Phavorinus.  As  before,  they  are  taken 
from  the  Fathers,  and  are  given  in  their  phraseology  and  style. 
Is  there  no  evidence  in  all  this  1  Is  it  nothing  that  two  lexico- 
graphers, writing  in  Greek,  define  (BaitridiLOi  thus,  and  say  nothing 
of  immersion  ?  Does  this  look  as  if  immersion  is  the  very  es- 
sence of  baptism,  as  some  assert  ?  Why  is  all  this  1  The  reason 
is  obvious  :  they  were  giving  the  ecclesiastical,  the  religious  sense 
of  the  word,  and  in  so  doing  they  could  give  nothing  else.  But 
who  was  Zonaras,  and  what  the  value  of  his  lexicon  ?  He  was 
one  of  the  four  leading  Byzantine  historians.  He  wrote  annals 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world  down  to  1118.  Also  a  commen- 
tary on  the  apostolic  canons,  decrees  of  councils,  etc.  He  was 
first  a  courtier  in  the  court  of  Alexius  Comnenus,  then  a  monk  on 
Mount  Athos.  Of  his  history  Tittman  says,  it  is  not  surpassed  by 
that  of  any  Byzantine  writer.  Of  his  lexicon :  "  I  consider  it, 
after  that  of  Hesychius,  the  most  learned  of  all  others  that  survive, 
the  most  copious  and  most  accurate  ;  so  that  by  it  we  can  correct 
and  confirm  Suidas,  the  author  of  the  Etymologium,  and  others, 
and  even  Hesychius  himself.  Finally,  it  is  invaluable  for  illus- 
trating  passages  of  authors — some  before  published,  others  pre- 


174         PROOF  FROM  THE  USE  OF  PREPOSITIONS.        §  56. 

served  in  him  alone."  The  question  is  not  as  to  the  taste  and 
rhetorical  excellence  of  Zonaras.  It  is  this :  Did  not  a  historian 
who  wrote  in  Greek,  and  was  perfectly  familiar  with  the  writings 
of  the  Greek  Fathers,  and  who  wrote  commentaries  in  Greek  on 
the  apostolic  canons,  did  not  he  know  what  ^aitrid^a  means  ?  And 
yet  of  immersion  he  says  nothing  ;  every  definition  is  an  equiva- 
lent of  xa^a^jtfixoj.  Docs  Dr.  Carson  say  he  is  defining  the  nature 
of  the  rite,  and  not  its  name  ?  I  reply :  the  definition  of 
Basil  is  not  a  definition  of  the  nature  of  one  external  rite,  i.  e. 
the  rite  of  Christian  baptism.  He  is  speaking  of  three  bap- 
tisms, that  of  John,  that  of  Christ  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and 
that  of  fire,  at  the  judgment  day.  He  cannot,  therefore,  be 
defining  merely  the  nature  of  one  rite.  Besides,  the  rite  of 
Christian  baptism  does  not  import  trial  in  the  fires  of  the 
judgment  day.  Baptism  by  water  does  not  import  baptism 
by  fire.  It  is  the  word,  therefore,  and  the  word  alone  that 
Basil  defines.  Nor  is  the  definition  accidental,  but  deliberate  and 
formal.  He  fixes  his  eye  fully  and  intently  upon  the  point.  He 
brings  up  three  cases  in  which  the  word  is  used.  Purification  is 
common  to  them  all — purification  by  water,  by  the  Spirit,  by  fire. 
There  is  a  generic  likeness  but  a  specific  difTerence,  and  so  he 
defines:  1.  Natural  purification  from  filth — 6  <rou  pu-Trou  xa^apjtfjxoV. 
2.  Spiritual  purification,  i.  e.  regeneration,  t]  Sia  tov  'irvsuixarog 
ava^s'vviio'jj.  3.  Purgation  by  trial  by  fire,  rj  i\i  tu>  Trvpi  xei(fsug 
(Batfuvos.  It  hence  follows  that  the  name  and  the  nature  of  bap- 
tism coincide,  in  import.     Both  denote  purification. 

§  56.     Proof  from  the  use  of  Prepositions. 

But,  as  if  to  exclude  all  doubt,  the  prepositions  that  often  follow 
(SaitrKf}xa  in  patristic  usage,  require  the  sense  purification,  and 
exclude  the  sense  immersion.  They  are  Siol,  sx,  d'K'6,  and  in  Latin, 
per.  We  find  jok'TtTiditM  Sia  itvpos,  dia,  Saxpvuv,  Sia  ju-apTupjou,  ^i'  ai'jm-a- 
Tos,  Si'  u^otTo^.  Purification  by  fire,  by  tears,  by  martyrdom,  by 
blood,  by  water.     Not  immersion  in  fire,  in  tears,  in  martyrdom, 


§    57.  ARGUMENT    CUMULATIVE.  175 

in  blood,  in  water.  We  find  /So.'rrKT'fxa  cI-tto  or  ix  <vJj(xaToc,  or 
v5arog,  or  'Trupoj,  purification  from  or  by  the  Spirit,  or  water,  or 
fire.  Not  immersion  in  tlie  Spirit,  or  water,  or  fire.  So  we 
find  baptisma  per  aquam,  purification  by  water — not  immer- 
sion in  it.  In  making  these  remarks,  I  have  my  eye  on  nu- 
merous passages  which,  did  my  limits  permit,  I  would  gladly 
adduce.  But  the  idiom,  I  think,  no  one  will  dare  to  dispute  ; 
but  one  beautiful  illustration  of  it  I  will  give  from  a  translation, 
in  a  commentary  of  Hilarius.  He  is  commenting  on  1  Cor.  x.  1, 
s/b'tt'TTiVavTo  £v  r>5  vsxsK'p  xal  sv  Tjj  &a\(i(f<j'p,  and  says,  "  their  past 
sins  were  not  imputed  to  them,  but  being  purified  by  the  cloud  and 
hy  the  sea,  they  were  prepared  to  receive  the  law.''  "  Non  enim 
illis  preterita  mala  imputata  sunt,  sed  per  mare  eXper  nubem  pwn- 
Jicati,  prseparati  sunt  ad  legem  accipiendam."  Comment  is  need- 
less. Who  does  not  see  that  with  him  /Da'Trrl^w  means  to  purify 
in  the  sacrificial  sense,  i.  e.  to  remit  sins  ?  Hence,  he  says  their 
sins  were  not  imputed  to  them,  but  they  were  purified  by  the  cloud 
and  the  sea. 

§  57.     Argument  cumulative. 

Any  one  of  the  cases  I  have  adduced  is  decisive ;  but  taking 
them  as  a  cumulative  argument,  their  force  is  irresistible.  But 
the  force  of  no  one  argument  is  greater  than  of  that  which  is  de- 
rived from  the  usages  of  language  as  to  clinic  baptism.  Dr. 
Carson  at  least  ought  to  feel  this.  He  says  that  we  may  as  well 
call  black  white  as  to  call  sprinkling  or  pouring  immersion  ;  and 
yet,  a  man  not  immersed,  but  only  purified  by  affusion,  is  ex- 
pressly said  to  have  been  baptized  upon  his  bed  on  which  he  lay. 
Nor  was  this  an  unfrequent  case.  Hilarius  says,  on  1  Tim.  iii. 
12,  13 — "  non  desunt  qui  prope  quotidie  baptizentur  scgri." 
<*  There  are  not  wanting,  almost  daily,  sick  persons  who  are  to 
be  baptized."  Emperors  were  purified  in  this  way.  And  yet, 
in  formal  histories  in  the  Greek  tongue,  it  is  announced  that  they 
were  baptized.  Constantius,  d-TToc^vTjtfxwv  e^o^s /Sa-TrTi^stf^ai,  "  dying, 
thoui^ht  fit  to  be   baptized."     Theodosius   the    Great   was   thus 


176  ARGUMENT   CUMULATIVE.  §    57. 

baptized  by  Ambrose,  in  his  last  sickness.  Basil  says  that  they  were 
so  baptized  when  they  could  neither  speak,  nor  stand,  nor  confess 
their  sins ;  and  when  those  present  could  not  tell  whether  thejt 
knew  what  was  done  to  them  or  not.  Gregory  Nyss.  calls  it 
£v7a(T)iov  (BoL'^lKfixa — sepulchral  baptism.  In  circumstances  so 
entirely  excluding  all  thought  of  immersion,  yea,  when  it  is  ex- 
pressly stated  that  they  were  not  immersed,  but  that  the  rite  was 
performed  by  affusion,  it  is  said  they  were  baptized.  Did  the 
Greeks  proclaim  a  falsehood  in  their  own  tongue  ?  Did  they 
declare  before  heaven  and  earth  that  a  man  was  immersed,  when 
every  man,  woman,  and  child  knew  that  he  was  not  ?  Yea,  did 
they  declare  it,  when  out  of  their  own  mouths  they  could  be  con- 
victed of  falsehood,  for  they  themselves  declared  that  he  was  not  ? 
How  would  it  sound  in  English  to  say  that  a  man  was  immersed 
by  affusion  or  sprinkling  1  And  would  it  sound  any  better  in 
Greek  ?     See  §  28,  Nos.  5,  and  15. 

But  take  the  other  view,  and  all  is  harmonious  at  once.  A 
man  sprinkled  on  his  bed,  was  purified  on  his  bed  on  which  he 
lay.  The  sprinkling  of  water,  or  of  blood,  did  purify.  Hence, 
when  Cyprian  reasoned  from  the  sprinklings  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment to  prove  that  a  man  could  be  baptized,  i.  e.  purified  by 
sprinkling,  his  argument  was  in  point.  But  on  any  other  sup- 
position it  was  totally  devoid  of  force. 

On  this  ground  we  see  at  once  why  Clement  saw,  in  all  the 
h'eathen  purifications,  an  image  of  baptism  handed  doMii  from 
Moses ;  and  why  he  could  say  that  it  was  a  custom  of  the  Jews 
to  be  baptized  often  on  their  couches.  We  see  why  Cyril  could 
speak  of  baptizing  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  and  Ambrose  of 
baptizing  by  sprinkling  the  blood  of  a  lamb  with  hyssop  ;  and 
why  water  and  blood  were  called  baptisms,  i.  e.  purifying  agents, 
as  before  explained.  VVc  can  see,  too,  why  Tertullian  and 
Justin  Martyr  looked  upon  all  the  aspersions  and  expiations  of 
the  heathen  world  as  baptisms.  Purifications  they  were.  Im- 
mersions they  were  not.  Finally,  we  see  why  Justin  Martyr 
said  :    be    baptized  as  to   your    soul    from   anger,   &c.,   for  to 


§  58.  DR.  Carson's  canons  cannot  weaken  it.  177 

purify  the  soul  from  anger,  &c.,  agrees  both  with  Scripture  and 
common  sense.  To  immerse  the  soul  from  anger  is  at  war  with 
both. 


§  58.     Dr.  Carson'' s  Canons  cannot  weaken  it. 

It  would  be  foolish,  even  if  it  were  possible,  to  seek  to  destroy 
such  a  cumulative  argument  by  trying  to  neutralize  its  parts  in 
detail,  according  to  Dr.  Carson's  principles.  But  it  cannot  be 
done.  All  of  his  canons  and  principles  of  trial  are  powerless 
here.  I  am  not  trying  to  prove  that  /Sa-TrTi^w  means  sprinkle  or 
pour — but  purify  ;  and  therefore  the  first  touches  me  not.  There 
is  no  room  for  his  second  canon,  for  my  argument  depends  not  on 
the  use  of  xocda^i'Jw,  in  place  of  (Saitri^u,  but  on  the  use  of 
(SairTi^c^  itself.  There  is  no  room  for  the  third  and  fourth  ca- 
nons. For  I  do  not  deal  in  rhetorical  uses  of  ^aitri^u  but  in 
plain  prosaic  definitions  of  it,  and  prosaic  illustrations  of  those 
definitions.  There  is  no  room  for  his  fifth  canon,  for  there  is 
clear  proof  that  the  name  and  the  nature  of  baptism  coincide. 
Wherever  the  Fathers  see  the  thing  purification,  they  give  the 
name  baptism,  whatever  the  form.  I  stated  at  the  outset,  that 
by  looking  at  the  result  and  end  of  immersion  in  pure  water,  i.  e. 
purity,  the  word  would  lose  its  modal  sense,  and  pass  to  the  sense 
to  purify,  irrespective  of  mode.  And  I  have  given  most  decisive 
proof  that  it  did  so  pass.  And  this  proof  is  strengthened  by  ten 
thousand  facts  on  every  side.  I  feel  as  though  I  had  hardly 
begun  to  adduce  the  proof  that  exists  on  this  subject.  Indeed,  no 
man  can  see  it  fully  who  will  not  leave  the  sultry  regions  of 
modern  controversy,  on  this  subject,  and  enter  into  the  patristic 
world,  till  its  languages,  feelings,  and  usages  rise  from  the  dead 
and  surround  him,  and  impress  upon  his  mind  the  whole  scene. 
He  will  then  find  that  the  modern  Baptists  and  the  ancient 
Fathers  live  in  two  entirely  different  worlds. 

The   position  from  which    the   inferences  in  §  40  have  been 
logically  derived,  has  been  established  by  evidence  most  clear 

8* 


178  DR.  Carson's  canons  cannot  weaken  it.  §  58. 

and  unanswerable.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  those  inferences 
are  also  established  as  true  ;  and  if  so,  their  practical  bearings 
are  numerous,  and  momentous,  and  it  might  seem  appropriate  to 
disclose  them  here.  But  though  the  main  position  has  been  most 
clearly  proved,  yet  its  whole  strength  has  not  been  presented,  nor 
can  it  be  till  I  have  considered  some  of  Dr.  Carson's  attacks  on 
my  former  articles  a  little  more  in  detail.  In  doing  this  I  shall 
have  occasion  to  adduce  still  further  evidence  from  the  Fathers,  so 
various,  pointed,  and  definite,  that,  in  my  judgment,  not  even  a 
pretext  for  doubt  will  remain.  Having  done  this,  I  shall  close 
by  a  more  full  exhibition  of  the  practical  bearings  of  the  results 
at  which  we  have  arrived.  It  was,  indeed,  my  intention  to  finish 
the  discussion  in  this  article.  But  the  reception  of  Dr.  Carson's 
violent  attack,  and  the  general  interest  now  felt  in  the  subject, 
seemed  to  indicate  the  propriety,  not  to  say  necessity,  of  a  dis- 
cussion more  thorough  and  extended  than  is  consistent  with  the 
limits  of  one  article. 


CHAPTER    II. 

At  the  close  of  my  last  article  I  made  the  following  remarks. 
"  It  was  my  intention  to  finish  the  discussion  in  this  article  ;  but 
the  reception  of  Dr.  Carson's  violent  attack,  and  the  general 
interest  now  felt  in  the  subject,  seemed  to  indicate  the  propriety, 
not  to  say  necessity,  of  a  discussion  more  thorough  and  extended 
than  is  consistent  with  the  limits  of  one  article."  I  proceed, 
therefore,  to  complete  the  discussion  thus  announced. 

§  59.     Reasons  for  a  further  notice  of  Dr.  Carson. 

It  may  perhaps  be  alleged  by  some,  that  it  is  needless  to  take 
any  further  notice  of  Dr.  Carson.  For  if  his  fundamental  princi- 
ples are  false,  as  I  have  shown,  then  all  that  grows  out  of  them  is 
false,  and  therefore  there  is  no  need  of  exposing  his  errors  in 
detaii.  Besides,  the  spirit  of  his  work  is  so  bad,  that  it  cannot 
exert  any  power  over  a  candid  mind  :  indeed  Dr.  Carson  has 
completely  exposed  himself,  and  totally  destroyed  his  own  power, 
by  the  manner  of  his  reply.  Besides,  it  is  humiliating  to  argue 
with  an  antagonist  who  so  far  forgets  the  laws  of  honorable  con- 
troversy, as  to  indulge  in  such  assumptions  of  superior  wisdom, 
and  such  gross  personalities,  as  fill  his  reply.  Such  an  antago- 
nist is  more  properly  answered  by  a  dignified  silence. 

Such  things  may  be  said,  and  JL  freely  admit  with  much  plau- 
sibility ;  indeed  such  considerations  have  often  occurred  to  my 
own  mind,  in  reading  Dr.  Carson's  reply. 

But  it  must  be  remembered  that  no  organized  body  of  men  is 
willing  to  see  the  truth  of  principles  which  are  at  war  with  the 
fundamental   principles  on   which    they  are  organized  ;     and   if 


180      KEASONS  FOR  A  FURTHER  NOTICE  OF  DR.  CARSON.    §  59. 

principles  which  they  are  unwilling  to  see,  are  established,  they 
are  always  more  desirous  to  overlook  and  forget  them,  than  to 
apply  them,  and  carry  them  out  to  their  ultimate  results.  And 
if  we  would  correct  errors  which  are  kept  alive  not  by  logic,  but 
by  organic  power,  we  must  not  only  develope  principles,  but  seek 
from  God  the  discretion  and  energy  needed  in  order  wisely  and 
efficiently  to  apply  them.  Then,  by  his  aid,  may  we  hope  to  see 
such  errors  finally  and  thoroughly  destroyed. 

Moreover,  the  fact  that  a  work  is  written  in  a  bad  spirit,  is  not 
always  a  sufficient  reason  for  not  giving  it  a  thorough  and  detail- 
ed answer.  The  bad  spirit  of  a  work  may  operate  in  two  ways. 
It  may  either  react  upon  the  author,  and  destroy  his  power,  or  it 
may  infect  and  corrupt  the  body  in  whose  behalf  it  was  written? 
and  bring  them  down  to  its  own  low  standard.  But  so  strong  are 
the  temptations  of  party  spirit,  and  so  powerful  is  the  unsubdued 
pride  of  organized  bodies  even  of  good  men,  that  a  zealous  parti- 
san, though  he  writes  in  a  bad  spirit,  is  notwithstanding  ap- 
plauded and  hailed  as  a  leader,  if  he  seems  to  argue  the  cause  of 
the  party  with  power.  In  short,  organic  bodies  are  always  in 
danger  of  preferring  intellectual  power,  and  the  victory  of  their 
own  peculiar  principles,  to  holiness  and  truth.  And  if  they  do,  a 
work  written  with  intellectual  power,  but  in  a  bad  spirit,  will 
corrupt  the  whole  body  :  like  poison,  it  will  diffuse  itself  through 
the  whole  system.  Hence,  to  write  in  a  bad  spirit,  is  the  highest 
sin  M'hich  a  man  of  great  intellectual  power  can  commit,  for  it  is 
throwing  poison  most  malignant  into  the  very  springs  of  spiritual 
life.  Nor  can  any  one  body  of  Christians  be  corrupted,  without 
endangering  the  spiritual  life  of  others.  For  pride  in  one  body 
tends  to  beget  both  pride  and  anger  in  all  others,  and  to  excite 
a  spirit  of  bitter  and  maligTiant  recrimination,  by  which  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  grieved  and  provoked  to  take  his  flight. 

In  all  such  cases  it  is  our  duty  to  seek  for  grace  and  wisdom 
from  God,  not  only  to  resist  in  ourselves  the  infection  of  the  bad 
spirit  which  is  poisoning  the  body  politic,  but  also  to  destroy  its 
malignant  power,  by  stripping  off  \he  garb  of  piety  in  which  it 


§  59.    REASONS  FOR  A  FURTHER  NOTICE  OF  DR.  CARSON.      181 

seeks  to  veil  itself,  and  exposing  its  true  and  pestilential  nature. 
Then,  by  the  blessing  of  God,  will  its  infectious  power  be  des- 
troyed by  the  fire  of  divine  truth  and  holy  abhorrence,  and  thus 
will  the  moral  nature  of  the  community  be  restored  to  soundness, 
and  the  plague  be  stayed. 

Had  any  person  in  the  Baptist  denomination  undertaken  to  do 
this  work  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Carson,  it  would  have  indicated  a 
moral  soundness  in  that  body  which  would  have  been  cheering  to 
any  holy  heart.  It  is  therefore  with  no  small  grief  that  I  have 
noticed  the  fact,  that  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  some  of  the 
leading  Baptist  presses  have  bestowed  on  Dr.  Carson's  works  on 
baptism,  and  especially  on  his  reply  to  me,  absolute  and  un- 
qualified praise.  Nor  have  I  ever  seen  or  heard  even  a  subdued 
whisper  of  censure,  or  even  a  remote  intimation  that  fully  to 
sympathize  with  the  spirit  of  his  works  would  create  the  least 
danger  to  individuals  or  to  the  denomination.  Indeed  some  have 
written  as  if  they  were  so  thoroughly  infected  and  pervaded  by 
that  spirit,  that  no  standard  was  left  by  which  a  bad  spirit  could 
be  detected,  and  no  moral  energy  remained  by  which  it  could  be 
resisted  or  abhorred. 

Indeed,  if  it  were  now  the  design  of  the  admirers  of  Dr.  Carson 
on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic,  to  recognise  and  exhibit  him  as  the 
great  leader  and  champion  of  the  Baptist  cause  on  earth,  the  great 
incarnation,  so  to  speak,  of  the  Baptist  spirit  and  Baptist  princi- 
ples, they  could  not  use  towards  him  language  of  higher  praise 
than  they  have  already  used. 

The  following  piece  exhibits  the  opinion  of  the  Christian 
Watchman,  the  leading  Baptist  paper  in  New  England,  in  con- 
nexion with  the  opinion  of  the  London  Baptist  Magazine. 

"discussion    on    BAPTISM. 

"  The  London  Baptist  Magazine  for  May  notices  a  late  pam- 
phlet from  the  pen  of  Alexander  Carson,  the  celebrated  Greek 
scholar,  entitled  '  Baptism  not  Purification,'   in  reply  to  Edward 


182  [reasons  for  a  further  notice  of  dr.  CARSON.         §  59. 

Beecher,  President  of  Illinois  College,  who  has  undertaken  to 
show  that  the  word  baptize  is  synonymous  with  the  word  purify. 
Mr.  B.'s  article,  which  was  originally  published  in  the  Biblical 
Repository,  was  published  in  a  separate  pamphlet  in  England, 
and  the  reviewer,  referring  to  this  newly-received  theory,  says : 
'  Dr.  Carson  has  seized  it  with  both  his  hands,  divested  it  of 
every  particle  of  covering,  torn  it  limb  from  limb,  dissected  it 
with  the  minutest  accuracy,  and  then,  without  the  slightest  token 
of  tenderness  or  pity,  committed  the  fragments  to  the  flames.  If 
its  admirers  who  extolled  it  so  loudly  in  its  prosperous  days,  now 
look  on  in  silence,  pronouncing  no  funeral  panegyric,  and  leaving 
its  relentless  destroyer  unpunished,  it  will  give  the  public  a  poor 
opinion  of  the  value  of  their  friendship.  We  cannot  follow  Dr. 
Carson  through  his  triumphant  course.  He  shows,  to  use  his  own 
language,  that  Mr.  Beecher  proceeds  on  an  axiom  that  is  false, 
fanatical,  and  subversive  of  all  revealed  truth,  namely,  that 
meaning  is  to  be  assigned  to  words  in  any  document,  not  from  the 
authority  of  the  use  of  the  language  ascertained  by  acknowledged 
examples,  but  from  views  of  probability  as  to  the  thing  related, 
independently  of  the  testimony  of  the  word.' 

'•  Dr.  Carson,  with  his  vast  critical  resources,  is  the  very  man 
to  perform  such  a  v/ork  as  this,  and  we  have  no  doubt  he  has 
done  it  thoroughly  ;  and,  perhaps,  it  was  needed  in  England,  as 
quite  a  flourish  of  trumpets  was  made  when  this  new  theory  was 
broached  there,  but  it  is  scarcely  needed  in  this  country,  for  Mr. 
Beecher's  theory  is  a  very  harmless  thing  here.  It  is  probable 
that  it  would  hardly  have  been  noticed  at  all  but  for  the  respecta- 
bility of  the  periodical  through  which  it  appeared." 

In  the  preface  to  the  American  edition  of  his  work  on  Baptism 
it  is  stated,  "  No  one,  it  is  believed,  has  made  that  deep  and  tho- 
rough research  into  the  writings  of  the  Greeks,  in  order  to  settle 
the  usus  loqucndi  of  the  words  j^ccTrrw  and  (^wktI^u,  as  has  Dr. 
Carson." 

In  the  Scottish  Guardian  the  following  character  of  Dr.  Carson 
is  given  :    "  As  a  profound  and   accurate  thinker,  an  able  nieta- 


§  59.    REASONS  FOR  A  FURTHER  NOTICE  OF  DR.  CARSON.      183 

physician,  a  close  reasoner,  a  deep  theologian,  Dr.  Carson  can 
stand  the  ground  against  any  rivalship."  It  is  also  stated  in  the 
papers,  that  in  England  the  Baptist  convention  or  general  associa- 
tion has  requested  Dr.  Carson  to  prepare  a  work  on  the  Ecclesias- 
tical Tradition  of  Baptism. 

Mr.  Hague,  also,  in  his  reply  to  Messrs.  Cooke  and  Towne, 
speaks  of  Dr.  Carson's  acute  mind  in  a  manner  adapted  to  convey 
high  praise  entirely  unmingled  with  censure. 

I  have  not  the  least  disposition  to  depreciate  the  original  powers 
of  Dr.  Carson.  On  the  other  hand,  I  think  he  does  possess  un- 
common powers,  of  a  certain  kind.  I  would  only  remark,  that 
the  greater  his  powers,  the  greater  his  responsibility  to  use  them 
aright,  and  the  greater  the  danger  to  the  Christian  community  if 
he  employs  them  to  disseminate  false  opinions  and  malignant 
emotions;  and  this,  I  am  fully  satisfied,  he  has  done. 

Notwithstanding,  therefore,  the  bad  spirit  of  his  works,  and  the 
extreme  weakness  of  his  arguments,  I  think  there  are  sufficient 
reasons  for  a  further  notice  of  his  reply.  Indeed,  to  treat  it  with 
contempt  is  virtually  to  treat  with  contempt  the  Baptist  denomina- 
tion itself. 

Not  that  I  suppose  that  there  are  not  in  that  denomination  many 
Christian  brethren,  whose  spirit  is  entirely  unlike  Dr.  Carson's, 
and  not  that  I  hold  my  Baptist  brethren  individually  responsible 
for  all  that  Dr.  Carson  has  said  and  done  ;  but  after  all  that  has 
been  so  publicly  said  by  leading  organs  of  the  Baptist  denomina- 
tion, giving  him  a  prominence  as  the  advocate  of  their  cause  sucfi 
as  is  given  to  no  other  man,  and  uttering  no  word  of  censure,  I 
am  authorized  to  regard  him  as  the  leading  representative  and 
expounder  of  Baptist  principles  in  the  present  age.  And  he 
plainly  writes  as  if  this  were  his  own  view  of  the  case. 

Besides  this  there  are  other  reasons  for  still  more  thoroughly 
examining  Dr.  Carson's  grounds.  He  is  so  perfectly  confident 
of  his  own  correctness,  that  his  statements  are  made  in  a  bold, 
palpable,  and  definite  form.  He  seems  to  be  deterred  by  no  fear, 
from  makincr  assertions  the  most  rash  and  unlimited,  if  they  are 


184      DR.  cakson's  remarks  on  the  patristic  argubient.    ^  60. 

needed  to  carry  out  his  principles  logically  to  what  he  deems  the 
true  results.  Indeed  his  great  power  as  a  leader  lies  mainly  in 
this,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  fact  that  he  really  does  know 
more  than  those  whom  he  leads. 

In  his  works  there  is  a  great  show  of  learning,  and  as  we  have 
seen  he  has,  at  least  among  his  own  denomination,  the  highest 
reputation  as  a  learned  man,  and  his  assertions  are  made  with  an 
energy  designed  to  be  overwhelming  and  annihilating,  and  on  his 
own  partisans  they  have  certainly  exerted  and  still  exert  vast 
power.  Thus  it  is  that  he  carries  his  party  with  him.  Now 
although  this  characteristic  of  Dr.  Carson  is  productive  of  much 
evil,  still  it  is  not  without  its  beneficial  results  ;  it  tends  to  place 
the  real  points  at  issue  in  the  clearest  possible  light,  and  to  con- 
centrate the  whole  energy  of  the  mind  on  them.  They  become 
focal  points  of  illumination,  and  burning  points  of  discussion. 

His  universal  affirmations  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  (Bairli^u  in 
the  whole  range  and  history  of  the  Greek  language,  we  have 
already  noticed  §  46  near  the  close.  No  less  definite  and  remark- 
able are  his  specific  assertions  as  to  the  use  of  the  word  in  the 
Fathers.  I  shall  proceed  to  notice  these,  and  then  consider  more 
in  detail,  his  reply  to  my  argument  from  Scripture,  and  from  the 
Fathers. 

§  60.     Dr.  Carson^s  Remarks  on  the  ratrisiic  Argument. 

These  relate  to  two  points,  their  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
scriptural  usus  loquendi  of  f3a<nTi^u),  and  the  sense  in  which  they 
actually  understood  and  used  it. 

On  the  first  point  he  states  explicitly,  that  they  could  not  be 
mistaken  as  to  the  apostolic  usus  loquendi.  His  words  are  these  : 
p.  472,  "  They  knew  the  meaning  of  the  language  which  they 
spoke."  P.  473,  "  To  suppose  that  persons  who  spoke  the  Greek 
language  might  understand  their  (i.  e.  the  apostles')  words  in  a 
sense  diflferent  from  that  in  which  they  used  them,  would  be  to 
charge  the  Scripture  as  not  being  a  revelation.     Whatever  was 


I 


§  60.    DR.  carson's  remarks  on  the  patristic  argument.       185 

the  sense  of  the  word  must  have  been  known  to  all  who  heard 
them  or  read  their  writings."  The  truth  of  this  position  I  freely 
admit.  It  is  clear  that  Patristic  Greek  is  based  upon  the  Septua- 
gint  and  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  it  is  no  less 
plain  that  they  had  minutely  studied  everything  in  the  Greek 
Scriptures  that  seemed  to  have  any  relation  to  the  subject  of  bap- 
tism, so  that  nothing  could  be  more  interesting  or  instructive  than 
a  philosophical  analysis  of  the  formation  of  all  parts  of  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Fathers  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  from  various 
passages  in  the  word  of  God,  supposed  by  them  to  allude  to  it,  but 
which  to  us  convey  no  such  allusion.  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as 
the  Scriptures  were  written  in  the  living  language  of  the  Greek 
Fathers,  and  all  their  idioms  were  by  them  so  carefully  studied, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  used  the  word  in  its  true  and 
apostolic  sense.  Still  further,  the  Latin  Fathers  who  understood 
and  read  Greek,  must  also  have  used  it  in  the  same  sense ;  and 
therefore  the  Latin  Fathers,  if  any  such  there  were,  who  did  not 
understand  the  Greek  well  enough  to  judge  originally  and  inde- 
pendently, must  also  have  received  it  in  the  same  sense,  for  the 
usus  loquendi  would  be  fixe4-  by  those  who  did  understand  it. 
Still  further,  all  writings  composed  in  the  Patristic  age,  and 
ascribed  to  the  leading  Fathers,  in  order  to  gain  authority  by  their 
names,  must  have  used  it  in  the  same  sense,  for  it  was  their  aim 
both  to  be  understood,  and  not  to  be  detected  by  those  for  whom 
they  wrote,  and  of  course  they  must., have  used  the  word  in  its 
current  and  usual  sense.  For  example,  though  the  list  of  seven 
baptisms  ascribed  to  Athangsius  is  probably  not  his,  yet  as  it  was 
written  in  his  age  and  name,  it  truly  represents  the  usus  loquendi 
of  that  and  also  of  preceding  ages.  Indeed,  all  of  it  can  be 
found  in  substance  in  the  authentic  works  of  preceding  Fathers, 
and  in  later  days  it  re-appears  in  the  authentic  writings  of  John 
of  Damascus.  So,  also,  whether  the  commentary  on  some  of  the 
first  chapters  of  Isaiah,  found  in  the  works  of  Basil,  is  the  real 
work  of  Basil,  or  whether  it  was  written,  as  Garnier  judges,  by 


186      DR.  Carson's  remarks  on  the  patristic  argument.    §  60. 

some  Cappadocian  ecclesiastic  in  the  name  of  Basil  soon  after  his 
death,  and  was  taken  chiefly  from  the  works  of  Eusebius  of  Ce- 
sarea  and  of  Basil  ;  still,  as  it  was  written  in  the  name  of  Basil, 
and  in  the  age  of  Basil,  and  was  universally  regarded  as  the  work 
of  Basil,  and  quoted  as  such,  it  must  have  correctly  exhibited  the 
usus  loquendi  of  that  age  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  In  quoting 
it,  I  follow  the  universal  ancient  usage  in  speaking  of  it  as  Basil's 
work,  though  in  truth  the  opinion  of  Garnier  seems  to  me  very 
likely  to  be  correct.  Still,  however  this  question  is  decided,  the 
worth  of  the  testimony  of  the  work  as  to  the  usus  loquendi  of 
/3cx?rW;^oo  is  not  at  all  aflcctcd.  Indeed,  as  is  the  case  in  the  work 
ascribed  to  Athanasius,  it  but  represents  and  embodies  the  usage 
of  previous  writers,  such  as  Origen,  Eusebius,  and  Basil,  if  the 
writer  was  not  Basil  himself. 

Hence,  if  these  views  are  correct,  and  of  their  correctness  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  the  materials  are  ample  for  settling 
the  apostolic  usage  of  the  word  in  question :  they  include  all  the 
Greek  and  Latin  Fathers,  and  all  the  works  written  in  their  name 
in  their  age.  My  only  wonder  is  that  Dr.  Carson  did  not 
resort  to  them  first  of  all,  instead  of  laboriously  examining  the 
writings  of  authors  who  knew  nothing  of  the  rite  in  question,  and 
had,  so  far  as  appears,  never  seen  or  read  the  Greek,  either  of 
the  Old  Testament  or  of  the  New. 

Let  us  now  consider  Dr.  Carson's  statement  as  to  the  sense  in 
which  the  Fathers  understood  and  used  the  word  /Sa-Trn'^w.  After 
attempting  to  answer  my  biblical  argument,  he  thus  proceeds  : 
p.  466,  "  Mr.  Beecher  next  professes  to  find  proof  in  the  Fathers. 
Proof  from  the  Fathers  that  (Sairri^oj  signifies  to  purify  f  As 
well  might  he  profess  to  find  in  them  proof  for  the  existence  of 
railroads  and  steam-coaches.  There  is  no  such  proof.  There 
is  not  an  instance  in  all  the  Fathers  in  which  the  word  or  any  of 
its  derivations  are  so  used.  Without  exception,  they  use  the  word 
always  for  immersion."  This  surely  is  sufficiently  definite  and 
explicit,  but  it  is  not  all,  for  he  afterwards  teaches  that  to  assert 


§  61.  ADDITIONAL    FACTS.  187 

otherwise  is  not  only  false,  but  also  an  act  of  presumptuous  har- 
dihood :  p.  470,  "  What  is  the  hardihood  of  men  who  can  presume 
to  allege  the  Fathers  on  the  other  side  ?" 

Those  who  have  carefully  examined  the  evidence  which  I  have 
already  adduced  on  this  point,  might  be  amused  by  the  extreme 
ridiculousness  of  these  assertions,  if  the  subject  were  not  too 
serious  for  ridicule.  But  assertions  of  this  kind  have  a  moral  as 
well  as  an  intellectual  character,  in  the  sight  of  God.  Can  any 
one  believe  that  Dr.  Carson  had  ever  made  the  investigations  ne- 
cessary to  quality  him  to  make  such  assertions  ?  And  is  this  the 
way  in  which  he  is  wont  to  make  statements  on  subjects  so  mo- 
mentous ?  An  extended  circle  of  minds  rely  on  him  for  informa- 
tion on  topics  beyond  their  reach.  Over  them  his  opinions  and 
unlimited  assertions  have  a  sway  almost  absolute.  And  is  this 
the  way  in  which  he  uses  his  intellectual  powers,  and  repays 
their  confidence  ?  I  hesitate  not  to  say,  that  he  could  not  more 
totally  mislead  all  who  rely  upon  him.  Instead  of  that  iron  uni- 
formity of  use  which  he  claims,  there  are  few  words  which  have 
in  the  Fathers  a  usage  more  diversified  and  various.  I  have 
hitherto  aimed  simply  at  one  point,  to  prove  that  it  has  the  usage 
that  I  claim.  To  exhibit  all  the  Patristic  uses  of  the  word  I  have 
not  attempted.  And  yet,  perhaps,  the  time  has  come  in  which  it 
ought  to  be  done,  for  it  will  give  a  more  elevated  point  of  vision 
from  which  to  survey  the  whole  subject,  and  to  study  its  symme- 
try and  proportions.  After  adducing,  therefore,  some  further 
evidence  on  the  main  point,  I  shall  attempt  to  give  a  general  view 
of  the  Patristic  uses  of  the  word. 

§  Gl.    Additional  Facts. 

Compare,  then,  with  Dr.  Carson's  contemptuous  denial  of  my 
position,  and  his  unlimited  and  overbearing  assertions,  the  follow- 
ing passage  from  Ambrose,  a  Father  who  was  not  only  a  student 
of  the  works  of  Basil,  but  drew  the  materials  of  many  of  his  own 
works  from  them.     Apol.  David,  §  59,  "  Per  hyssopi  fasciculum 


188  ADDITIONAL    FACTS.  §  61. 

adspergebatur  agni  sanguine,  qui  mundari  volebat  typico  baptis- 
mate."  "  He  who  desired  to  be  purified  with  a  typical  baptism 
was  sprinkled  with  the  blood  of  a  lamb  by  means  of  a  bunch  of 
hyssop."  Compare  this  now  with  the  passages  from  Ambrose, 
Cyril,  and  others,  in  §  53,  and  who  does  not  see  with  absolute 
and  intuitive  certainty  that  baptism  has  the  sense  of  sacrificial 
purification  ?  Sprinkling  with  blood  was  a  typical  purification, 
but  certainly  it  was  not  a  typical  immersion. 

Indeed,  so  far  did  the  Fathers  carry  the  idea  of  sacrificial  puri- 
fication, that  they  gave  the  name  baptism  to  cases  in  which  the 
expiated  person  was  not  touched  by  the  purifying  fluid.  All  that 
they  required  was,  that  it  should  be  so  sprinkled  or  otherwise 
used,  that  expiation  should  be  actually  made  ;  whenever  this  was 
done  in  any  way,  they  regarded  the  person  as  baptized,  i.  e.  puri- 
fied, or  expiated,  or  absolved. 

Hence  when  the  blood  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  was  sprinkled  on 
the  posts  of  the  door,  they  regarded  all  in  the  house  as  baptized, 
i.  e.  purified  or  expiated  by  blood.  So  both  Theodoret  and  Am- 
brose regard  the  purging  with  hyssop  in  Ps.  li.  7.  In  the  Septu- 
agint  it  is.  Thou  shalt  sprinkle  me  with  hyssop.  They  both 
applied  it  to  baptizing,  i.  e.  purifying  by  the  blood  of  a  lamb. 
Hence  also  one  who  wrote  in  the  name  of  Chrysostom,*  speaks  of 
the  thief  on  the  cross  as  baptized,  because  expiation  was  made  for 
him  by  the  water  and  blood  that  came  out  of  the  side  of  Christ. 
He  also  intimates  in  the  same  passage,  that  if  there  had  been  a 
shower  of  rain  it  would  have  been  sufficient  to  baptize  the  thief, 
but  as  there  was  not,  he  was  baptized  by  the  issuing  of  water 
and  blood  from  the  side  of  Christ.  All  this  is  perfectly  plain  the 
moment  we  assign  to  fJaitrl^oi  the  sacrificial  sense  to  purify.  For 
the  actual  making  of  an  expiation  justified  the  application  of  the 
word  to  the  person  expiated,  and  also  by  metonymy  to  that  by 
which  it  was  made.  And  hence,  as  we  have  proved,  Origen 
states  in  general  terms  that  Christ  calls  the  shedding  of  his  blood  a 

*  Chrys.  Vol.  2,  p.  2S6,  Venice.    173t. 


§  6J.  ADDITIONAL    FACTS.  189 

baptism.  Hence,  also,  as  we  have  seen,  the  water  and  the  blood 
that  issued  from  his  side  were  called  baptisms.  See  §  52,also  §§  25, 
26.  Compare  now  Dr.  Carson's  positive  and  contemptuous 
assertions  with  all  these  facts,  and  what  shall  we  say  ?  It  is  not 
the  province  of  .the  human  mind  to  create  facts  in  history  or  philo- 
sophy, but  simply  to  discover  and  classify  them.  But  Dr.  Carson 
proceeds  as  if  it  were  his  province,  by  intense  assertions,  to  create 
them.  But  after  all  his  assertions,  they  stand  calmly  and  simply 
just  as  they  did  before.  I  find  in  the  Fathers  no  evidence  at  all 
of  the  existence  of  railroads  and  steam-coaches,  but  abundant  evi- 
dence that  /3a'7r'ri'^w  means  to  purify. 

Let  me  now  add  some  further  evidence  on  the  subject  of  moral 
purification.  Repentance,  sorrow  for  sin,  the  trials  of  God's  pro- 
vidence, and  the  truth,  all  purify  the  mind  from  sin.  They  do 
not  make  expiation  or  atonement,  but  they  purify  in  a  moral 
sense.  Accordingly,  in  the  usage  of  the  Fathers  all  these  things 
are  said  to  baptize.  One  writing  in  the  name  of  Chrysostom  enu- 
merates five  kinds  of  baptism.*  Of  these  I  shall  notice  the  baptism 
by  the  truth,  and  the  baptism  by  fire.  By  fire  he  understands  the 
trials  of  life  by  which  God  purifies  his  children,  calling  and 
choosing  them  in  the  furnace  of  affliction.  In  proof  of  this  he 
refers  to  Is.  iv.  4,  "  The  Lord  shall  purge  by  the  spirit  of  burn- 
ing ;"  and  Ps.  Ixvi.  10,  "  Thou,  O  God,  hast  proved  us,  thou  hast 
tried  us  as  gold  and  silver  is  tried."  "  For,"  says  he,  "  as  gold 
or  silver  is  purified  in  the  furnace,  by  consuming  the  dross,  so  a 
man,  placed  in  the  furnace  of  affliction,  is  sanctified  by  the  re- 
moval of  his  sins."  To  be  thus  baptized/  i.  e.  purified  by  fire, 
he  regards  as  a  peculiar  privilege  of  the  sons  of  God.  "But  the 
servants  of  the  devil. are  not  baptized  by  fire.  Wherefore  ?  Be- 
cause he  who  is  wholly  polluted,  cannot  so  lay  aside  his  filth  as 
to  be  made  clean.  Begin  to  wash  a  brick  in  water,  does  it  ever 
become  clean  ?  No  ;  but  by  stirring  up  the  clay  it  becomes 
more  polluted.     For  he  is  made  pure  in  whom  is  something  good, 

*  Vol.  6,  p.  xliii.    Opus  Imperf. 


190  ADDITIONAL    FACTS.  §  61. 

by  means  of  which  he  can  be  made  pure."  Now  all  this  argu- 
ment is  powerless  to  prove  that  the  servants  of  the  devil  cannot  be 
immersed  in  fire.  That  can  be  done  whether  they  are  purified 
or  not.  The  argument  proves  only  that  the  servants  of  Satan 
are  not  purified  by  the  fire  of  trial,  because  they  are  all  dross, 
there  is  in  them  no  gold  to  be  purified.  But  the  sons  of  God  are 
purified  by  the  fire  of  trial,  because  in  them  there  is  gold,  and  the 
fire  of  trial  consumes  the  dross  and  leaves  the  gold  more  pure. 
Baptism  by  the  truth  he  illustrates  by  a  reference  to  John  xv.  3, 
*'  Now  are  ye  clean  (xa&a^oi)  through  the  word  that  I  have  spoken 
unto  you."     Faith  purifies,  it  does  not  immerse. 

Anastasius,  Bib.  Pat.  vol.  ix.  1030,  says  that  he  "  should  dare 
to  call  mourning,  with  reference  to  God,  another  baptism."  In 
Op.  Isaise  Abbatis,  Bib.  Vet.  Pat.  And.  Gallandii,  vol.  vii.  p. 
292,  it  is  said,  "  Affliction  with  humility  and  silence  is  a  baptism, 
for  John  was  clothed  in  camel's  hair,  and  had  a  leathern  girdle 
around  his  loins,  and  lived  in  the  desert,  which  is  a  sign  of  afflic- 
tion and  penitence,  which  purifies  a  man."  In  all  these  cases 
the  idea  of  immersion  is  out  of  the  question.  The  fire  of  trials, 
the  truth,  sorrow  for  sins  as  against  God,  affliction  with  humility 
and  patience,  all  purify  a  man,  but  they  do  not  immerse  him. 
Hence  in  all  these  cases,  the  idea  of  immersion  is  absolutely  and 
unquestionably  excluded  from  the  word  baptism.  No  meaning 
but  purification  is  possible. 

I  have  before  me  six  lists  of  different  kinds  of  baptism,  by  six 
different  Fathers,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Chrysostom,  Athanasius, 
Maximus,  Isidore  Hispalensis,  and  John  of  Damascus.  The  one 
passing  under  the  name  of  Athanasius  is  probably  not  his,  but  is 
a  decisive  proof  of  the  usus  loquendi  of  the  age,  and  it  re-appears 
enlarged  in  the  works  of  John  of  Damascus.  The  list  of  John 
of  Damascus,  I  shall  translate,  and  add  to  it  remarks  and  illustra- 
tions as  I  proceed.  It  is  found  on  p.  261,  vol.  i.,  of  his  works. 
—Ed.  Paris,  1712. 

1.  "  The  first  baptism  was  that  of  the  deluge,  for  the  expur- 
gation of  sin." 


§  61.  ADDITIONAL    FACTS.  191 

Of  this  Tertullian  thus  speaks,  p.  259  :  Paris,  1634.  "  After 
the  waters  of  the  deluge,  by  which  long  continued  iniquity  was 
purged  away  (purgatus  est),  after  the  haptism,  if  I  may  so  say,  of 
the  world." 

Augustine,  Cyprian,  and  others,  from  a  different  point  of  view, 
call  the  deluge  a  baptism  to  those  in  the  ark,  because  they  were 
purified  and  saved,  but  not  immersed,  whilst  those  out  of  it  were 
not  purified,  but  were  immersed,  overwhelmed,  and  destroyed. 

In  each  case,  however,  it  is  regarded  as  a  baptism,  solely  as  it 
was  a  purification,  not  because  it  was  an  immersion. 

2.  "  The  second  baptism  is  that  by  the  sea  and  the  cloud  (<ro 
Sia,  ry}s  ^aXarfrfr]  j  xa/  tyjs  v£(p£Xr)j),  for  the  cloud  was  a  symbol  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  sea  of  the  water." 

Here,  as  in  other  cases,  the  use  of  5ia  instead  of  sv  should  be 
noticed,  as  throwing  light  on  the  causative  sense  of  ev  after  ^air- 

Hilarius  says  expressly  in  giving  the  sense  of  1  Cor.  x.  2,  they 
were  purified  hy  the  cloud,  and  hy  the  sea  [per  mare  et  per  nubem 
purificati),  sv  ttJ  vsqjs'Xt)  xal  sv  rfj  fyaXaddji  sjSam'T'Kfavro. 

3.  "  The  third  was  that  under  the  law.  For  every  one  who 
was  unclean,  washed  himself  (c/.'rrsXouSTo)  with  water,  and  wash- 
ed (sVXuvs)  his  garments,  and  thus  was  prepared  to  enter  into  the 
camp." 

Here  the  idea  is  manifestly,  not  an  immersion,  but  a  complete 
purification,  effected  by  washing  both  the  body  and  the  clotlies. 
This  view  is  confirmed  by  Theophylact,  who  says,  on  Jn.  ii.  6  : 
"  The  Jews  daily  washed  themselves  (^dtS'Tr'kvv ovro),  and  thus  puri- 
fied, ate;  as  forexample,  if  they  had  touched  a  leper  or  a  dead  body, 
or  had  sexual  intercourse,  they  waslied  themselves  (d'jfsXovovTo), 
as  unclean."  Flere  he  interchanges  d'jfS'n'XvvovTo  and  cl'rsXouovTo 
as  equivalent.     To  denote  the  same  idea  /SofTrri^w  is  also  used. 

Basil,  commenting  on  Isa.  i.  16,  wash  you,  make  you  clean, 
says  :  "  This  Scripture  seems  in  words  to  contradict  itself;  God 
first  refuses  to  hear,  rnd  to  forgive  sir-,  and  then  says  wash 
(Heb.  V2n'2,     Gr.  Xot^a'ao-Js),  as  if  they  could  be  purified. 


192  ADDITIONAL    FACTS.  §  61. 

One,  however,  relates  to  salvation  by  the  Mosaic  Law,  the  other 
by  the  Gospel.  He  here  repeals  the  law,  and  introduces  the  Gos- 
pel. Shall  we  (says  the  Jew)  perform  legal  rites  ?  Nay,  all 
are  rejected.  What  then  shall  we  do  ?  Wash  and  make  clean. 
Oh,  yes  (replies  the  Jew),  Moses  said  something  about  washing, 
for  he  said,  he  who  touches  any  unclean  thing,  and  is  polluted, 
shall  wash  his  garments  and  wash  his  body  with  water,  and  shall  be 
clean. 

But  in  this  passage  (replies  Basil),  God  does  not  say  wash  for 
every  instance  of  pollution,  but  merely  wash  (Xov(fa(f6s).  There  is 
one  washing — one  purification — sv  (SairrKf^M,  ^ia  xa^a^tfj^ ." 

Here  the  Hebrew  yrt*!  and  the  Greek  Xouco,  and  /Sa-Trrj^w  as  im- 
plied in  (Suirncf^M,  are  all  undeniably  used  as  synonymes. 

On  Heb.  ix.  10,  Divers  Baptisms,  Theodoret  also  uses  (Sa'z'- 
tI^u  in  the  sense  to  wash.  He  says,  concerning  those  polluted  by 
an  issue,  or  leprosy,  or  sexual  intercourse,  they  washed  them- 
selves (s/3a'7r<r»^ovTo)  and  were  cleansed  with  sprinkling.  Where, 
as  Basil  also  does,  he  uses  ^airri^G)  as  an  equivalent  of  f  i^^. 

Theophylact  says,  on  the  same  passage,  if  any  one  had  touch- 
ed a  dead  body,  or  a  leper,  or  had  an  issue,  "  he  washed  himself, 
and  so  appeared  to  be  cleansed" — sfSccTrrl^src^  xal  oCtus  sSoxsi  xa^a^i- 

Chrysostom  says,*  "  The  Jewish  Baptism  (fBa-rtrKfixa)  purified 
from  bodily  pollutions,  but  not  from  sins  that  affected  the  conscience. 
It  did  not  expiate  adultery,  theft,  and  other  crimes;  but  if  anyone 
had  touched  the  bones  of  the  dead,  or  eaten  forbidden  food,  or  had 
touched  lepers,  he  washed  himself  (sXousto),  and  was  unclean  un- 
til evening,  and  afterwards  he  was  clean."  For,  says  he,  "  'he 
shall  wash  his  body  with  pure  water,  and  shall  be  unclean  until 
evening,  and  then  he  shall  be  clean.' — Levit.  xv.  7.  Therefore 
the  Jewish  purification  (xa^Ja^tfjov)  did  not  purify  from  sins,  but 
from  bodily  pollutions  alone."  In  his  premises  he  has  ^o.nri<i[LOi 
'Iou(5a»3<6v,  in  his  conclusions  xa^o-pcTjov  louJcuxcv,  as  itssynonyme. 

*  Vol.  2,  p.  370.     Paris.     1718.     De  Baptismo  Christi. 


§  61.  ADDITIONAL    FACTS.  193 

All  the  Fathers  in  like  manner  take  the  divers  baptisms  ofHeb. 
ix..  10,  to  mean  merely  and  solely  j^uri/ications  of  persons,  some- 
times by  washing,  as  in  this  case,  at  others  by  sprinkling  of  blood, 
or  of  ashes,  as  in  the  cases  quoted  from  Ambrose  and  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem.  They  also  look  upon  the  system  as  a  system  of  puri- 
fication, taken  as  a  whole,  including  not  only  the  washing  of  the 
body  and  of  the  clothes,  but  also  sprinkling  with  blood  and  ashes. 
Taken  in  this  broad  sense,  it  is  called  lout^aVxov  ^a^itTid^a,  or  lou- 
6oCixw  xu6a,^(fiov,  or,  as  in  this  case,  fSu'rrrKf^a  vo/xixo'v. 

4.  "  The  fourth  baptism  is  that  of  John,  which  was  introductory, 
and  designed  to  lead  those  who  were  baptized  to  repentance,  that 
they  might  believe  in  Christ,  for,  said  he,  I  baptize  you  with 
water,  but  he  who  cometh  after  me  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  with  fire.  John,  therefore,  purifies  beforehand  hy 
water,  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  Spirit" — ('K'^oxcc&ai^si  ouv  o  luaw^g 

5.  "  The  fifth  was  the  baptism  of  our  Lord,  wherewith  he  was 
baptized.  But  he  is  baptized,  not  as  if  he  needed  purification, 
but  that  he  might  take  upon  himself  my  purification,  that  he  might 
bruise  the  heads  of  the  dragons  in  the  water,  that  he  might  im- 
merse my  sins,  and  bury  the  old  Adam  in  the  water,  that  he 
might  purify  the  baptist,  that  he  might  fulfil  the  law,  that  he 
might  reveal  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  that  he  might  be  a  type 
and  example  of  our  baptism  ;  but  we  are  baptized  with  the  per- 
fect baptism  of  the  Lord,  that  which  is  hy  water  and  the  Spirit 
(to  Si'  u^aToj  rs  xal  irvsufxaTOf).  Moreover,  Christ  is  said  to  baptize 
with  fire,  because  he  poured  out  the  grace  of  the  Spirit  upon  the 
Holy  Apostles,  in  the  form  of  fiery  tongues,  as  our  Lord  said,  Acts 
i.  5,  or  else  on  account  of  the  punitive  baptism  of  future  fire." 

"  The  sixth  baptism  is  that  by  tears  and  repentance  (to  ^jd 
jxSTavoiaj  xoli  ^axpowv) — which  is  truly  painful." 

"  The  seventh  baptism  is  that  by  blood  and  martyrdom — 
(to  ^r  al'jxaTOff  xal  jaapTupi'ou),  with  which  Christ  was  baptized  for  us. 
It  is  peculiarly  honorable,  inasmuch  as  he  who  is  thus  baptized 
(i.  e.  purified),  is  never  polluted  again." 

9 


194  ADDITIONAL    FACTS.  §  61- 

"  The  eighth  and  last  is  not  a  salutary  baptism,  but  one  that  is 
destructive  of  evil.  For  sin  and  evil  can  no  more  bear  sway, 
but  are  punished  for  ever." 

To  this  list  the  author  of  the  "  opus  imperfectum"  on  Matt, 
adds  baptism  by  the  truth,  and  baptism  by  afflictions,  as  stated 
above. 

The  usage  of  the  preposition  6ioi  in  Nos.  2,  5,  and  6,  should 
be  compared  M^ith  its  use  at  the  end  of  No.  4,  as  furnishing  de- 
cisive proof  of  the  sense  of  the  word  baptism  in  this  whole  list. 

But  still  more  decisive,  and  beyond  all  possibility  of  answer, 
is  the  passage  which  follows,  designed  to  explain  an  assertion  in 
No.  5,  that  Christ  was  baptized  that  he  might  purify  the  baptizer. 
The  purification  of  John  is  thus  explained  :  z^a'Xrld&'Y]  'Iwawyj^Ti^v 

John  was  baptized  by  placing  his  hand  on  the  divine  head  of  his 
master  and  by  his  own  blood. 

The  Fathers  held  that  Christ,  by  touching  the  waters,  purified 
them,  and  gave  them  a  purifying  power. 

So  also  they  held  that  by  touching  John  he  purified  him,  and 
this  purification  by  touch  he  expressed  by  /^a-Ti'Tj^w.  Surely  all 
idea  of  immersion  is  excluded  here.  Indeed  he  expresses  the 
same  idea  by  ayjct^w,  in  another  part  of  the  passage.  Christ  was 
baptized  that  he  might  purify  (007101^17)  the  baptizer.  John  was 
also  clearly  regarded  by  the  Fathers  as  purified  by  his  own  blood, 
not  immersed  in  it. 

From  these  lists  we  also  learn  that  the  eternal  punishment  of 
the  wicked  is  a  baptism,  because  it  will  purge  the  holy  universe 
from  sin.  The  flood  was  a  baptism,  for  two  reasons;  it  purified 
the  world  from  sinners  and  sin  ;  and  it  also  purified  and  saved 
those  in  the  ark.  But  the  wicked,  who  were  immersed  by  the 
flood,  were  not  baptized.  So  also  the  whole  process  of  legal  puri- 
fication under  the  law,  including  the  washing  of  the  clothes  as 
well  as  that  of  the  body,  was  called  a  baptism.  Viewing  it  as  a 
complex  whole,  it  was  proper  to  call  it  a  purification,  but  not  an 
immersion.     So  too  the  washing  of  the  disciples'  feet  by  Christ  is 


§  62.  OTHER  ERRORS  OF  DR.  CARSON.  195 

regarded  by  another  Father  as  a  baptism  ;*  and  by  still  another, 
the  anointing  of  the  blind  man's  eyes  with  clay  and  spittle, 
and  his  washing  in  the  pool  of  Siloam,  because  the  spittle  of 
Christ  purifies  as  well  as  the  washing  in  the  pool.f 

What  now  shall  we  say  to  all  these  things  ?  If  Dr.  Carson 
had  asserted  that  the  Mississippi  ran  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
with  an  impetuous  current  towards  the  cold  regions  of  the  north, 
and  there  descended  by  one  vast  cataract  towards  the  centre  of 
the  globe,  and  had  charged  all  with  presumptuous  temerity  who 
dared  to  call  in  question  the  truth  of  his  assertions,  he  could  not 
be  more  utterly  at  war  with  the  facts  of  the  case,  than  he  is  in  his 
assertions  as  to  the  Patristic  use  of  ^a'jrTj^w. 

§  62.     Other  Errors  of  Br.  Carson. 

It  was  with  reference  to  assertions  such  as  these  that  I  remark- 
ed, that  Dr.  Carson  had  made  assertions  that  I  knew  not  how  to 
explain  if  he  had  ever  read  the  Greek  Fathers. 

Indeed,  Dr.  Carson  has  elsewhere  made  assertions  as  to  other 
words  with  the  same  inexplicable  disregard  of  facts.  On  p. 
445,  he  thus  speaks :  "  Mr.  Beecher's  criticism  on  the  word 
(-Trs^ixXutfatf^ai)  here  (Tobit  vi.  2)  employed  for  washing,  is  en- 
tirely false. '^  I  translated  it  to  wash  all  around.  He  proceeds, 
"  The  simple  word  signifies  to  deluge,  to  overwhelm,  to  inundate, 
to  flow  over  anything."  "  Mr.  Beecher  criticises  from  imagina- 
tion, not  from  knowledge  of  the  language.  Has  he  justified  his 
criticism  by  a  single  example  ?"  He  then  remarks  with  great 
P"^  taste  and  refinement,  "  The  word  does  not  signify  that  the  young 
man  in  bathing  splashed  about  like  a  duck,  or  rubbed  himself  like 
a  collier,  but  that  he  threw  himself  into  the  river,  that  the  stream 
might  flow  over  him."  Again,  "  There  is  no  friction  nor  hand- 
washing in  this  word.  It  performs  its  purpose  by  running  over 
either  gently  or  with  violence."     So  much  learned  minuteness 

,    •  Anastasius,  Bibliotheca  Patrura  Max.  vol.  ix.  p.  880. 
t  Ambrose,  vol.  ii.  p.  109G  ;  on  Jn.  ix.  7. 


196  OTHER  ERRORS  OF  DR.  CARSON.  §  62. 

and  such  bold  charges  on  me  of  inaccuracy,  would  lead  an  incau- 
tious reader  to  suppose  that  Dr.  Carson  must  have  first  made  sure 
his  facts  before  daring  thus  to  commit  himself  before  the  learned 
world.  Indeed,  when  I  first  read  his  remarks  it  produced  a  tem- 
porary impression  that  1  must  be  wrong,  or  he  would  not  dare  to 
make  such  assertions.  But  the  moment  I  looked  at  facts,  the  illu- 
sion vanished.  It  is  indeed  true  that  xXv^u)  has,  in  some  cases, 
the  meaning  that  he  assigns  to  it.  But  it  is  not  true  that  it  has 
not  the  meaning  that  I  assign  to  it.  The  facts  are  these  :  1.  It 
is  applied  by  Euripides  to  washing  the  body  with  sea  water, 
where  vjV<rw  also  is  applied  to  the  same  operation,  which  Dr. 
Carson  admits  denotes  hand-washing. 

2.  It  is  applied  to  the  washing  of  children,  by  Aristotle — ro 
';r'ai^jov  vSuri  'jts^ixkvi^siv — to  wash  the  child  all  around  with  water. 

3.  In  Geoponica  17,  22,  it  is  applied  to  washing  an  ulcer  by 
a  fluid,  sXxos  xXu^sjv  oC^uj.  Here  is  no  deluging,  overwhelming, 
or  inundation. 

4.  Epiphanius  applies  it  to  the  purifications  of  the  Jews, 
xXu^o'fASvoi  ov^u),  where  deluging  or  overflowing  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion.— Vol.  i.  p.  26. 

5.  By  Pollux  it  is  applied  to  the  washing  of  clothes,  and  also 
of  cups,  and  is  given  as  a  synonyme  of  iirXvvsiv,  and  ^vTtTSiv,  and 
xa&ai^siv,  and  their  compounds  with  6i6l,  diro,  and  jx.  What  can  be 
more  decisive  ? 

6.  It  is  applied  to  the  washing  of  head,  hands,  and  body,  after 
an  unlucky  dream. 

7.  It  is  used  by  Plutarch  to  denote  the  washing  off*  blood  from 
armor,  aljxa  twv  oVXojv  sti  ^s^jxov  diroxXu^srai.     Plut.  7.  283.   11. 

8.  It  is  applied  by  Lucian  to  an  object  wet  or  sprinkled  on  all 
sides  with  spray,  by  rapid  motion  through  water  at  rest,  ctcp^oj 
flTs^jxXu^ojxsvov.  Lucian,  V.  H.  1.  31.  Here  surely  is  no  flow- 
ing of  water  over  an  object. 

9.  Like  xa&ai^o,  it  has  a  medical  use  to  cleanse  or  purge — 
lar^oi  'n'lx^dv  'n'lx^oTg  xXu^outfi  9a^juuaxoif  -x^oXtjv.  Plut. — Physicians 
purge  out  bitter  bile  by  bitter  medicines.  Indeed  its  medical  use 
gave  birth  to  our  English  word  clyster. 


1 


§  63.  GENERAL  VIEW  OF  PATRISTIC  USES  OF  BAIITIZQ.  197 

10.  All  lexicographers  of  any  note  sustain  my  use  of  the 
word,  e.  g.  Stephens,  Scapula,  Damm,  Hedericus,  Ernesti,  Pas- 
sow,  Schneider,  etc.  etc.  Hence  it  is  plain  that  assertions  more 
contrary  to  the  fact  than  Dr.  Carson's  criticism  on  me  cannot  be 
made,  even  if  I  were  to  say  that  Dr.  Carson  criticises  from  ima- 
gination, and  not  from  a  knowledge  of  the  language  in  translat- 
ing vSc^^  water  or  nrv^  fire.  And  whatever  Dr.  Carson's  talents 
they  cannot  enable  his  character  as  an  accurate  scholar  long  to 
survive  such  criticisms  as  he  has  here  given. 

In  like  manner  when  I  say  that  Josephus  uses  /Scc-tttjo'i^  to  de- 
note the  rite  of  baptism.  Dr.  Carson  denies  it,  and  says,  "  The 
^  (SairrKfis  is  the  immersing — l3aitTKfy.6gisthe  rite  of  immersion." 
And  yet  it  must  be  notorious  to  any  one  who  has  ever  read  the 
Fathers,  that  they  do  not  hesitate  to  use  ^anfrKfis  to  denote  the 
rite,  in  opposition  to  xaradv(fig,  the  act  of  immersing,  as  in  Sozo- 
men,  ixia  xaradudsi  iir'iTsXsTv  t>^v  dsiav  (Saitridiv.  "  To  perform  the 
sacred  baptism  by  one  immersion.^^ 

Many  of  Dr.  Carson's  assertions  as  to  tingo,  /Da-Tfrw,  Xouw,  and 
viitru,  are  of  the  same  kind.  Indeed  I  do  not  remember  that  I 
ever  read  a  writer,  so  many  of  whose  most  positive  assertions 
were  so  totally  at  war  with  facts.  But  success  in  such  an  as- 
sault on  facts  is  hopeless.  The  highest  talents  are  entirely  un- 
equal to  such  a  war. 

§  63.      General  View  of  Patristic  Uses  of  (Sa'trri^cju 

But  enough  has  been  said  to  show  the  entire  incorrectness  of 
Dr.  Carson's  theories  of  the  Patristic  uses  of  (Sairri^o.  I  shall 
therefore  conclude  this  part  of  the  subject  by  a  brief  general 
view  of  what  that  usage  is. 

1.  Of  course  I  need  not  say  that  they  sometimes  use  the  word 
in  the  sense  to  immerse  anything  in  water,  or  to  denote  the  state 
of  anything  that  sinks  in  the  water  or  is  overflowed  by  it.  And 
also  that  from  this  are  derived  metaphorical  uses  to  denote  immer- 
sion in  sorrow,  ignorance,  darkness,  sin,  pollution,  afflictions,  and 


198  GENERAL  VIEW  OF  PATRISTIC  USES  OF  BAlITIZfi.  §  63. 

misery.     All  this  I  have  before  noticed  at  large.     See  §§  3  and 
4,  10  and  28. 

2.  To  wash,  implying  an  effort  to  cleanse,hn\.  not  including  the 
effect.  In  this  sense  they  use  it  as  a  translation  of  the  Heb.  fn^^ 
just  as  they  use  Xoi;w.  In  this  case  /Sot-Trritfp-a  is  taken  in  connex- 
ion with  xoi&a^dig  or  y.a&a^i(i^k ',  thus,  commenting  on  Is.  i.l6, 
Basil  (as  before  stated,  §  61),  to  denote  the  idea  of  wash- 
ing, uses  /SofTrT J (Tfjia,  and  to  denote  purification,  he  uses  xaSa^&ig. 
Basil  thus  reasons,  as  a  Jew  "  Moses  said  something  concerning 
washing  (Xour^ou),  for  he  who  touched  any  unclean  thing  and  was 
polluted,  shall  wash  his  garments  and  his  body  with  water,  and 
shall  be  clean."  He  replies.  "  But  Isaiah,  when  he  said  wash 
you,  make  you  clean,  did  not  say  wash  you  on  account  of  every 
pollution  ;  but  simply  wash.  There  is  one  washing,  one  purifica- 
tion." £v  jSa-rTitfixa  |Aia  xa&a^(fis.  In  like  manner  Theodoret  and 
Theophylact  plainly  use  /Sa-Trr/^w  in  the  sense  to  wash,  in  speak- 
ing of  the  Mosaic  washings  enjoined  by  the  word  fTVi,  So  in  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  we  find  washings  and  purifications  ex- 
pressed in  the  same  way.  For  example  in  book  vi.  c.  20,  and  c. 
30,  and  elsewhere,  the  phrase  tfuvsp^v^  /SacrTiVixara  clearly  denotes 
frequent  washings.  Dr.  Chase  deserve  sgreat  credit  for  his  can- 
dor in  so  translating  it,  in  his  recent  valuable  edition  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Constitutions  and  Canons,     pp.  151,  161. 

3.  To  cleanse  and  purify  by  washing,  i.  e.  to  wash,  including 
the  effect,  and  hence,  in  general,  to  purify  in  the  most  generic  sense, 
either  by  water,  or  by  truth,  or  by  atonement  and  expiation,  or 
by  trials,  or  by  mourning  and  sorrow.  After  what  has  been  said 
there  is  no  need  to  offer  any  proof  of  the  real  existence  of  this 
sense.  But  here  it  is  peculiarly  important  to  bear  in  mind  the 
distinction  between  sacrificial  purification,  or  expiation,  and 
moral  purification,  or  sanctification,  to  which  I  have  so  often  re- 
ferred. For  without  a  clear  apprehension  of  it,  much  of  the 
language  of  the  Fathers  cannot  be  understood. 

4.  (3a'n'TKfix6s  and  ^am-ritf^.a  by  metonymy  denote  means  of 
purification,  e.  g.  water,  blood,  fire,  oil,  air,  &c.     §  52. 


§  63.  GENERAL  VIEW  OF  PATRISTIC  USES  OF  BAriTIZS2.  199 

5.  (jaziritfixa  is  also  used  to  denote,  comprehensively,  a  system 
designed  to  effect  purification  in  various  ways,  e.  g.  (3kziri(![}.a. 
Mwutfg'ojj,  or  vofxixo'v  or  'Jou(JaBc6v  which  Chrysostom  interchanges 
as  synonymous  with  xafia^dm  'lovSaTxov,  to  denote  not  an  act,  nor 
one  rite  merely,  but  a  complex  system,  involving  and  compre- 
hending various  kinds  and  modes  of  purification.  So  Basil  says  of 
the  Jewish  baptism,  "  it  recognised  a  difference  of  sins,  not  forgiving 
all ;  it  required  various  sacrifices,  it  made  minute  regulations  as 
to  purity,  it  separated  the  polluted  and  unclean  for  a  time,  it  ob- 
served times  and  seasons."  In  all  this  he  is  plainly  illustrating  a 
system  of  purification  involving  many  parts,  but  having  one  great 
end,  i.  e.  to  purify,  either  by  expiatory  sacrifices,  or  in  some 
other  way.  So  too,  the  baptism  of  John  or  of  Christ  is  often  used 
in  like  manner  to  denote  a  system  of  purification. 

6.  They  also  used  it  to  denote,  comprehensively,  the  actual 
processes  involved  in  conferring  absolution ;  e.  g.  if  exorcism, 
divesting  of  all  clothing,  immersion,  unction,  and  robing  in  white, 
the  pronunciation  of  certain  words,  and  a  benediction,  were  sup- 
posed to  be  involved  in  conferring  a  legal  and  valid  absolution, 
then  the  term  (Sa-sirKfij.a  was  comprehensively  used  to  include  all 
these  processes.  Any  part  of  the  process  that  purified  was  also 
called  by  the  same  name.  So  Origen  speaks  of  baptizing,  i.  e. 
purifying  with  oil.  And  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  speak  of 
unction  as  a  type  of  spiritual  baptism,  i.  e.  spiritual  purification. 

7.  The  result  or  effect  produced  by  these  processes,  or 
symbolized  by  them,  they  also  denote  by  the  word  baptism 
or  purification,  i.  e.  absolution,  remission  of  sins.  It  is  in 
this  sense  that  Zonaras,  in  his  Lexicon,  defines  baptism  as 
being  the  remission  of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit.  This  remis- 
sion of  sins  was  effected,  in  their  view,  not  by  any  energy  of  the 
water  in  itself,  but  by  some  mysterious,  sanctifying  power  given 
to  it  when  the  Spirit  brooded  upon  it  at  the  creation,  or  when 
Christ  was  baptized  in  it,  or  when  the  bishop  or  priest  con- 
secrated it,  operating  in  concurrence  with  the  energy  of  the  Holy 


200  GENERAL  VIEW  OF  PATRISTIC  USES  OF  BAIITIZii.  §  63. 

Spirit,  who,  according  to  a  divine  constitution,  diffused  and 
exerted  his  mighty  energies  in  and  through  the  water.  In  this 
way,  in  their  view,  was  effected  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  the  superiority  of  the  baptism  of  Christ  to  that  of  John  lay  in 
the  fact  that  John  used  the  simple  fluid  water,  but  in  that  of 
Christ,  a  compound  fluid,  so  to  speak,  was  employed,  composed  of 
sanctified  water,  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  On  no 
topic  is  the  eloquence  of  Chrysostom  so  fervid,  as  when  he  un- 
folds  the  purifying,  nay,  regenerating  powers  of  this  semi- 
material,  semi-spiritual  compound.  As  quick  as  the  ocean  ex- 
tinguishes a  spark  that  falls  into  it,  so  soon  does  this  mighty 
compound  extinguish  the  sins  of  the  sinner  that  falls  into  it,  and 
makes  him  pure  as  the  angels  and  brilliant  as  the  sunbeams  of 
heaven.  To  symbolize  this  spotless  whiteness  of  the  soul  thus 
miraculously  and  suddenly  obtained,  the  baptized  person  was 
robed  in  purest  white.  His  being  stripped  perfectly  naked  before 
immersion,  was  designed  to  give  to  the  miraculous  energies  of  the 
fluid  full  scope  to  penetrate  every  part  of  body  and  soul.  And 
in  the  opinion  of  some  of  the  Fathers,  these  waters  also  had  a 
miraculous  power  even  to  heal  bodily  disease,  of  which  they 
give  us  some  examples,  as  true,  no  doubt,  as  all  other  of  the  lying 
wonders  of  that  age  of  fraud  and  delusion.  The  word  baptism, 
used  in  this  sense,  denoted  not  merely  a  transient  act,  but  a 
permanent  and  abiding  moral  change  effected  by  the  rite.  The 
soul  was  conceived  of  as  invested  in  a  robe  of  spotless  purity. 
Hence  baptism  is  likened  to  spiritual  robes,  and  the  Fathers 
speak  of  putting  on  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  of  preserving  their 
baptism  unspotted.  Origen  preferred  the  baptism  of  blood  to  that 
of  water  and  the  Spirit,  because  few  keep  this  unspotted  till 
death,  but  the  purity  gained  by  the  baptism  of  a  bloody  death  is 
polluted  no  more.  The  leading  idea  in  this  usage  of  the  word 
is  a  permanent  state  or  character  of  purity,  and  not  the  act  of  im- 
mersion at  all.  Indeed,  what  sense  is  there  in  such  an  expres- 
sion as  keeping  the  act  of  immersion  unspotted  till  death  ?     The 


§  63.  GENERAL  VIEW  OF  PATRISTIC  USES  OF  BAIITIZQ.  201 

act  is  soon  over,  and  all  possibility  of  polluting  or  making  it  pure 
is  passed  by.  And  yet  Dr.  Carson  again  and  again  asserts  that 
baptism  always  denotes  the  mode  of  an  act,  and  nothing  else. 

8.  The  word  Baptism  is  also  used  as  the  appropriated  name  of 
the  rite  of  Christian  Baptism.  In  this  case  it  approximates  in  its 
use  towards  a  proper  name,  or  a  technical  term,  i.  e.  the  attention 
of  the  mind  is  abstracted  from  the  meaning  of  the  word,  though 
it  is  in  fact  significant,  and  is  fixed  upon  the  rite  for  which  it 
stands.  Thus  to  speak  of  the  purification  of  baptism  would  not 
be  tautology,  but  would  denote  the  purification  effected  by  the 
rite  bearing  that  name. 

9.  Finally,  the  Fathers  gave  the  name  baptism  to  any  trans- 
action regarded  by  them  either  as  typifying  baptism,  or  producing 
similar  effects  ;  e.  g.  when  Elisha  raised  the  axe  out  of  the  water 
by  throwing  in  a  stick,  Ambrose  regards  it  as  a  baptism,  because 
as  the  axe  was  immersed  in  the  water,  so  was  the  sinner  in  sin 
— and  as  the  stick  raised  the  axe  out  of  the  water,  so  does  bap- 
tism, i.  e.  remission  of  sins,  raise  a  sinner  out  of  his  sins.  The 
stick,  according  to  him,  is,  of  course,  a  type  of  the  cross  of 
Christ.  So  when  Moses,  by  throwing  in  the  branches  of  a  tree, 
made  the  bitter  waters  of  Marah  sweet,  Ambrose  regards  it  as 
another  kind  of  baptism,  because  as  the  branches  made  bitter 
waters  sweet,  so  does  baptism  make  sweet  the  bitterness  of  the 
human  heart.  Origen  regards  the  passage  of  Elijah  over  Jor- 
dan, as  he  was  taken  up  in  a  chariot  of  fire,  as  a  wonderful  bap- 
tism, because  he  thus  passed  over  Jordan,  and  went  to  heaven  ; 
and  baptism  does  something  like  this  for  the  pardoned  soul. 
Passing  through  the  Red  Sea  was  a  baptism,  because  it  purified 
the  Israelites,  and  drowned  Pharaoh,  by  immersion,  just  as  the 
rite  of  Baptism  purifies  Christians,  and  leaves  Satan  and  the  old 
man  immersed  and  strangled  in  the  baptismal  pool.  The  flood 
was  a  baptism,  because  it  purified  and  saved  Noah  and  his  family 
— and  also  purified  the  world — and  immersed  and  strangled  the 
enemies  of  God — just  as  the  rite  of  baptism  purifies  all  who  come 
by  it,  into  the  ark,  i.  e.  the   church — and  as   the    waters  of  the 

9* 

I 


202  GENERAL  VIEW  APPLIED.  §  64. 

flood  immersed,  strangled,  and  purged  off  the  wicked,  so  will  an 
eternal  baptism  of  fire  purge  out  the  wicked  from  the  kingdom  of 
God.  They  are  the  chaff  to  be  burnt  up  with  unquenchable  fire, 
when  the  Redeemer  thoroughly  purges  his  floor. 

Hence,  in  the  days  of  the  Fathers,  the  narrow  view  that  ^air- 
Ti'^w  means  only  to  immerse  had  no  being.  The  great  idea  be- 
fore their  minds  was  purification  or  absolution.  This  they  ap- 
plied to  means  of  purification,  or  a  system  of  purification,  or  to 
the  processes  involved  in  being  purified,  or  to  the  supposed  re- 
sult of  these  processes,  or  to  the  rites  viewed  as  an  ordinance  of 
Christ,  or  to  any  supposed  or  real  typical  transaction  producing 
what  they  deemed  similar  effects. 

§  64.     General  View  Applied. 

By  thus  throwing  off"  the  shackles  of  arbitrary  canons,  and 
leaving  the  mind  perfectly  free  to  watch  the  actual  evolutions  of 
the  facts  of  language  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  we  find  our- 
selves enabled  to  solve  without  difficulty  all  their  various  modes 
of  expression.  For  example,  when  Photius  says,  aS  T^sTg  dvaSv- 
(fsiS  xai  xaTa8v<fsis  tov  (BairT'Kfixarog  Qavarov  xal  avadradiv  tf7)ju,aivou(T'iv, 
we  see  at  once  that  ^aitridy.a  refers  to  the  rite  of  absolution,  and 
ctvoK^uo'ij  and  xara^urfj^  to  acts  involved  in  it.  Thus  "  the  three 
immersions  and  emersions  of  the  rite  of  purification  (or  absolu- 
tion) symbolize  death  and  resurrection." 

Again  Theophylact  says,  ^aifT\(i[kOi  uxf'n'S^  Siol  rrjs  xaraSvtfsus 
Gavarov  ourw  §ia  Tvjg  dva8v(fscjJS  rriv  dvatfratfiv  tutToT.  "  As  the  rite 
of  purification  shows  forth  death  by  immersion,  so  by  emersion  it 
shows  forth  resurrection." 

Again  he  says,  sv  r^itfi  xaraSucfscfi  rov  Cw/xaTo^  sv  ^a.'n'rKfixa  ToTg 
laurou  li^a&riTaTs  'Tta^adiSuixsXsyuv  m'o^sv&svrss  ixa&rirsv(faTS,  etc..  Matt, 
xxviii.  19.  He  gave  to  his  disciples  one  rite  or  ordinance  of  pu- 
rification, by  three  immersions  of  the  body,  saying,  go  ye  there- 
fore and  teach  all  nations,  etc. 

I  would  here  call  attention  once  more  to  the  fact,  that  to  de- 


§  64.  GENERAL  VIEW  APPLIED.  203 

note  the  act  of  immersion  xara^'ua'i?  is  used,  reserving  to /SaTr'ntrfxa 
the  sense  purification  or  absolution  as  the  name  of  the  rite.  But 
inasmuch  as  ^aifTK^fxa  could  be  used  to  denote  the  act  of  immer- 
sion, it  was  sometimes,  though  rarely,  so  used,  of  which  in  §  28, 
4, 1  have  given  an  example  from  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  Can. 
lu.  r^lcL  (BtxitTla^oLTo.  inoig  ix^vrjcfsus  three  immersions  of  one  initia- 
tion. This  was  so  clearly  a  departure  from  common  usage,  that 
both  Zonaras  and  Balsamon  deemed  it  worthy  of  a  note.  That  of 
Zonaras  I  have  given  in  the  section  referred  to.  That  of  Balsa- 
mon is  this,  TO.  Ss  (Saifr'Ktiiarot,  ivrav&a,  dvri  xaraSvtfsuv  uroX'/rrTSov 
jxoi.  This  note  is  still  more  remarkable  and  decisive  than  that  of 
Zonaras — for  he  merely  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  /SacrTjVjxaTa 
means  immersions  here — "  It  seems  to  me  that  /Sa'n'Tio'jxaTa  is  to 
be  taken  for  immersions  here."  Indeed !  If  it  never  means  any- 
thing but  immersions,  as  Dr.  Carson  says,  both  the  note  itself  and 
this  modest  expression  of  opinion  are  quite  out  of  place.  But  Dr. 
Carson's  theory  of  this  word  is  entirely  a  modern  invention.  No 
one  had  ever  dreamed  of  it  in  the  patristic  age.  Balsamon  well 
knew  that  in  common  usage  ^airrKf^j^a,  meant  purification,  and  not 
immersion. 

It  may  be  well  here  to  notice  the  sophistical  reasoning  by 
which  the  author  of  this  canon  endeavored  to  make  out  the  doc- 
trine of  trine  immersion.  It  was  this  :  Christ  did  not  enjoin  it 
upon  them  to  purify  into  his  death,  in  which  case  there  would 
have  been  one  immersion,  but  into  the  name  of  the  Father, 
and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  hence,  it  being  assumed 
that  immersion  is  the  mode,  there  must  be  one  act  of  immersion 
for  each  person.  In  this  reasoning,  l3a,irTi^o  in  the  command  re- 
tains its  usual  sense,  but  when  from  the  three  persons  the  in- 
ference is  drawn  that  there  ought  to  be  three  acts  of  immer- 
sion, it  leaves  its  usual  sense,  and  denotes  to  immerse,  and  this 
usage  was  thought  by  two  Greek  commentators,  to  be  so  likely  to 
mislead  as  to  need  an  explanatory  note,  to  prevent  confusion. 

In  Gregory  Nazianzen  occurs  a  striking  passage,  of  peculiar  in- 
terest, as  showing  at  once  that  immersion  was  in   fact  the  usual 


204  GENERAL  VIEW  APPLIED.  ^  64. 

practice,  but  not  the  meaning  of  the  word  :  (3a<jfri(i{ka  xakoviisv  us 
(fvv&a.'jrroijJvYis  rj  vSan  tyjs  aixa^rias — "  We  call  it  (i.  e.  the  rite) 
baptism,  i.  e.  absolution  or  purification,  because  our  sins  are 
buried  with  us  in  the  water."  Whilst  this  clearly  implies  that 
in  the  rite  they  were  in  fact  buried  in  the  water,  it  no  less 
clearly  implies  that  it  was  not  called  baptism  for  this  reason,  but 
because  their  sins  were  buried  with  them.  The  burial  of  sins 
in  the  baptismal  pool,  was  a  common  mode  of  expressing  absolu- 
tion or  purification  from  sin,  taken  from  Micah  vii.  19,  Thou  wilt 
cast  all  their  sins  into  the  depth  of  the  sea.  So  that  the  sense  is 
plainly  this  :  we  call  it  purification,  because,  when  we  are  buried 
in  the  baptismal  pool,  our  sins  are  buried  with  us,  and  we  of 
course  come  out  perfectly  pure.  If  the  word  had  meant  immer- 
sion, he  must  have  said  simply  :  We  call  it  immersion,  because 
we  are  immersed. 

We  now  come  to  a  case  of  inconsistent  usage,  inconsistent  at 
least  with  the  present  systems  of  philology.  In  a  few  cases 
Chrysostom  uses  the  principle  of  a  double  sense  in  commenting 
on  this  word.  Inasmuch  as  both  meanings,  i.  e.  purification  and 
immersion,  coexist  in  the  language,  and  immersion  was  the  com- 
mon mode,  on  this  principle  the  word  can  be  expounded  as  having 
both  meanings  in  one  and  the  same  place,  in  order  to  give  greater 
fulness  to  the  passage.  At  this  we  need  not  wonder  in  the 
Fathers.  A  certain  class  of  modern  commentators  have  not 
hesitated  to  do  the  same  thing.  On  this  ground  Chrysostom  in  a 
few  instances  gives  a  two- fold  exposition  of  the  passage  in  which 
Christ  says,  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized  with,  etc. 

One  exposition  is  based  on  the  sense  purification.  As  in  Horn. 
65,  al.  66,  on  Matt. — Speaking  of  his  death  on  the  cross,  he  says 
he  calls  it  baptism,  jSacrTitf/xa,  indicating  that  a  great  purification, 
xa^a^jULov,  should  be  made  for  the  world  by  the  things  then 
transpiring — De  petit  fil  Zebedai.  Vol.  i.  p.  520. 

Again  he  says,  "  he  calls  it  baptism,  because  by  it  he  purified 
the  world,  and  not  only  so,  but  on  account  of  the  ease  of  his  re- 
surrection, for  as  he  who  is  immersed  (Saitn^oiJ.svos  in  water  arises 


§  64.  GENERAL  VIEW  APPLIED.  205 

with  great  ease,  being  nothing  hindered  by  the  nature  of  the 
waters,  so  he  having  descended  unto  death  arose  again  with  ease, 
for  this  reason  he  calls  it  baptism  :  and  again,  on  Mark  x.  39, 
"  he  calls  his  cross  baptism,  for  as  we  are  easily  immersed  and 
arise  again,  so  he  having  died,  easily  arose  again  when  he  would." 
In  §  26,  p.  66,  I  have  said,  "  Nor  have  I  found  any  evidence 
that  the  passages  in  Luke  xii.  50,  Mark  x.  37,  39,  Matt.  xx.  22, 
23,  were  ever  understood  by  any  of  the  Fathers  in  the  sense 
either  of  immersion  or  overwhelming."  This  usage  of  Chrysos- 
tom  is  an  exception,  and  it  is  the  only  one  that  I  have  yet  found. 
He  plainly  uses  the  word  in  both  senses,  purification  and  immer- 
sion. And  yet  even  in  these  cases  the  sense  purification  can  be 
retained  as  the  name  of  the  rite,  and  the  illustration  be  taken 
from  the  well  known  mode  of  its  performance,  though  the  view 
that  I  have  taken  seems  to  me  most  likely  to  be  correct.  I  have 
already  twice  stated  that  cases  of  inconsistent  usage  may  exist, 
without  at  all  destroying  the  force  of  my  argument,  §  27, 
page  66,  and  §  21,  page  51  ;  yet  after  extended  research  my 
greatest  surprise  has  been,  that  I  have  found  so  few  such  cases. 
I  have  been  surprised,  because  when  I  considered  how  general 
was  the  practice  of  immersion  among  the  Fathers,  and  how  natural 
it  was  that  their  practice  should  react  upon  their  language,  and 
that  immersion  was  in  fact  an  existing:  meaning  of  the  word,  it 
seemed  strange  to  me  that  this  meaning  should  so  rarely  be  given 
to  the  word  fSairri^u  in  speaking  of  the  rite.  But  when  I  re- 
flected that  the  great  idea  of  purification,  i.  e.  absolution,  or  re- 
mission of  sins,  was  ever  uppermost  in  their  minds,  and  that  im- 
mersion, though  the  common  mode,  was  not  deemed  essential  to 
it,  I  saw  a  sufficient  reason  for  reserving  to  /Sa-TTitfixa  this  great 
idea,  and  introducing  the  terms  xaraSvifis  and  avatJutfiff  to  denote 
immersion  and  emersion. 

The  real  nature  of  this  idiom  will  become  clearer  by  a  passage 
of  Gregory  Nyssen,  in  which  he  uses  xa^a^cfis  so  as  to  show  the 
force  of  (BairrKfixa  when  used  with  dvadvffis  and  xaradvtfis  :  "  omit- 
ting things  beyond  our  power  let  us  inquire  rivos  svsxsv  6i'  vSaros  ^ 


206  COMMISSION  TO  BAPTIZE.  §  65. 

for  what  end  is  the  rite  of  purification  by  water,  and  for  what  use 
the  three  immersions  are  employed  ?"  All  see  in  this  case  a 
usage  ofxadoi^(fis  exactly  equivalent  to  the  use  of  ./Sa-Trritffxa  just 
illustrated.  The  use  of  the  preposition  Sia  after  xa&a^(fis  and 
equivalent  words,  illustrates  the  use  of  the  same  preposition  after 
I3a'!rri(fixa,  &c.  I  will  by  parallel  columns  still  further  exhibit 
this  similarity  of  usage  to  the  eye. 


The  following  uses  of  xa^ct^dig, 
ayvKfixog,  &c.,  are  taken  from 
Cyril  of  Alexandria : 


Tov  ayvidixov  dC  vSaros — 
Trjv  xct&cc^tfiv  ^i'  v8arog 

Tou  ^i'  ai'/xaToff  a^vitf/Aou — 

r-^v  8ia  X^jVtou  xa^a^Civ  73  Si 
vdarog  ts  xai  crvsu/xaroff 


The  following  are  from  Gre- 
gory Thaum.  Athanasius — 
Clemens  Alexand.  : 

fBaitrKfi^a  61a,  8ax^{)(j)v 
(Satrri^siv  Si'  vSarog 

^anfTid^oL  5t'  ai'/xaroj 

/SoL'Trriff'/xa  voy)<rov  6i6i  'n'vsviiaros — 
/5a.<ff'Tio'/xa  dKf&yirov  Si'  vSarog. 


This  comparison  of  similar  idioms  could  be  extended  to  other 
prepositions,  as  iv  taken  in  the  instrumental  sense  as  equivalent 
to  Sia. — and  also  to  the  use  of  the  dative  in  the  instrumental  sense 
after  both  words,  showing  by  an  extended  induction  of  particulars 
such  an  exact  similarity  in  the  use  of  prepositions  and  cases  after 
(Sa.'Kria^y.a  and  xa^a^rfj^,  &c.,  as  proves  them  at  a  glance  to  be 
synonymous,  for  the  word  xara^utfif ,  immersion,  is  never  followed 
by  such  prepositions  and  the  dative  case  in  such  a  sense.  See 
also  §  56,  on  the  same  point. 

§  65.     Commission  to  Baptize. 

I  will  conclude  this  general  view  by  noticing  its  bearings  on  a 
question  relating  to  the  commission  to  baptize.  It  is  this.  Why 
is  there  a  commission  given  to  baptize  in  Matthew  and  Mark,  and 
none  in  Luke  and  John  ?     This  is  a  question  for  those  to  answer 


§  66.  DR.  Carson's  dissertation  on  aoY  i2.  207 

who  deny  the  correctness  of  the  view  that  I  have  given — for  on 
this  view  it  presents  no  difficulty  at  all.  The  reply  is,  that  a 
commission  to  baptize  is  in  fact  a  commission  to  purify,  that  is,  a 
commission  to  remit  sins — and  in  Luke  and  John,  the  disciples  do 
receive  a  commission  to  remit  sins.  Luke  xxiv.  47,  48, — "  That 
repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his  name 
among  all  nations — and  ye  are  witnesses  of  these  things,"  that 
is,  that  repentance  and  baptism  should  be  preached  in  his  name 
among  all  nations — for  according  to  Zonaras  and  the  Fathers, 
baptism  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit. 

This  view  of  the  passages  in  Luke  and  John  occurred  to  my 
mind  before  reading  the  Fathers,  as  furnishing  a  test  of  the 
soundness  of  my  views,  and  on  reading  them  I  found  that  they  did 
in  fact  regard  the  commission  to  remit  sins  in  Luke  and  John  as 
a  commission  to  baptize,  as  really  as  that  in  Matthew  and  Mark. 
They  regarded  it  in  short  as  merely  another  mode  of  expressing 
the  same  idea.  In  John  the  phraseology  is  different  from  that  of 
Luke  : — "  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto 
them,  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained,"  John 
XX.  23.  In  short,  Christ  died  as  the  Lamb  of  God  to  take  away 
the  sins  of  the  world,  and  the  great  business  of  the  apostles  was 
to  publish  to  the  world  the  great  doctrine  of  the  remission  of  sins, 
through  his  death,  and  the  terms  on  which  it  could  be  obtained, 
and  to  establish  the  rite  by  which  this  purgation  from  sin  should 
be  shadowed  forth  and  commemorated  in  honor  of  the  Trinity, 
and  especially  of  that  Spirit  by  whom  this  atonement  was  made 
effectual  to  purge  the  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the 
living  God.  "  Go  ye  therefore,  teach  all  nations,  purifying  them 
(that  is  remitting  to  them  that  repent  and  believe  their  sins)  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Amen." 

§  66.     Dr.  Carson's  dissertation  on  Xovu. 

A  few  words  ought  here  to  be  said  on  the  meaning  of  the  words 
Xouw  and  Xou<r^6v.     I  have  affirmed  that  by  their  own  force  they 


208  DR.  carson's  dissertation  on  AOY'Q.  §  66. 

denote  simply  washing  or  purification,  and  not  bathing.  To 
prove  this  I  referred,  in  §  16,  to  the  fact  that  the  vessels  for 
washing  the  hands  in  the  vestibules  of  ancient  churches  were 
called  XovTYj^sg  as  well  as  viifri^^sg.  Dr.  Carson  sees  fit  in  view 
of  this,  to  devote  nearly  nine  pages  to  a  dissertation  on  Xouw. 
He  opens  his  dissertation  as  follows,  p.  66  :  "  The  philosophical 
linguist  Dr.  Campbell,  of  Aberdeen,  in  distinguishing  the  words 
Xo;;gj  and  vjVtw,  makes  the  first  signify  to  wash  or  bathe  the  whole 
body,  the  last  to  wash  or  bathe  a  part.  This  distinction  has  been 
generally  received  since  the  time  of  Dr.  Campbell.  Mr. 
Beecher  calls  it  in  question,  yet  he  does  not  touch  the  subject 
with  the  hand  of  a  master.  He  merely  alleges  an  objection 
which  he  thinks  calculated  to  bring  confusion  into  what  is  thought 
to  be  clear ;  but  he  gives  no  additional  light  by  any  learned  ob- 
servations of  his  own.  I  shall  endeavor  to  settle  this  question  by 
evidence  founded  on  the  practice  of  language  as  well  as  the 
practice  of  the  New  Testament."  Parturiunt  montes !  Dr. 
Carson  is  about  to  touch  the  subject  with  the  hand  of  a  master — 
and  to  settle  the  question  ! 

Let  us  look  at  his  results.  He  proves  abundantly  that  Xouw 
can  be  applied  to  bathing  by  immersion,  which  I  never  denied. 
Does  he  prove  that  it  cannot  be  applied  to  sprinkling  ?  Not  at 
all.  He  asserts  it,  but  nowhere  proves  it.  I  assert  the  contrary, 
and  this  is  my  proof:  Porphyry  asserts,  in  libel,  de  antro 
Nympharum,  that  it  was  customary  for  married  women  to  purify 
maidens  by  sprinkling  or  affusion,  before  marriages,  with  water 
taken  from  fountains  and  living  springs.  Photius  tells  us  that  the 
water  used  for  this  purpose  at  Athens,  was  brought  in  a  pitcher 
from  certain  fountains  which  he  specifies,  by  the  oldest  male  boy 
of  the  family.  Here  bathing  by  immersion,  is  excluded,  and  yet 
the  water  thus  used  is  called  Xourpov,  or  Xourpa  vujuKpixa,  and 
Zonaras  defines  XouTpa  thus,  to,  sSj  XoCjv  dyovra  tyjs  dxctdaptfiag. 
Those  things  which  produce  the  removal  of  impurity,  that  is, 
means  of  purification.  The  boy  who  brought  the  water  was 
called  XouTpoQopoj. 

Again,  Basil  applies  the  term  Xourpo'v  to  a  clinic  baptism  by 


§  66.  DR.  carson's  dissertation  on  AOY'O.  209 

sprinkling  or  affusion.  The  prsetor  Ariantheus,  converted  by  his 
wife,  was  also  baptized  by  her  on  his  dying  bed.  Of  this  Basil  says, 
letter  386, — He  washed  away  all  the  stains  of  his  soul  at  the  close 
of  his  life  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  Xourpoj  'xaXiyysvsdictg. 
There  was  no  bathing  by  immersion  ;  but  sprinkling  or  affusion. 

Again,  in  Corpus  Hist.  Byzant.,  Nicephoras  Gregoras,  Lib.  24, 
p.  573,  Venice,  1729,  uses  Xourpov  to  denote  the  complex  rite  of 
purification,  including  unction  and  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  "  Since  it  is  customary  with  men  to  wash  themselves 
with  water  and  to  anoint  themselves  with  oil,  God  has  joined  to 
the  oil  and  the  water  the  grace  of  his  Spirit,  and  made  them  (i.  e. 
oil,  water,  and  spirit)  the  cleansing  of  regeneration,"  Xourpov 
flr'aXj^ysvstriaj — anointing  with  oil  is  a  part  of  the  process  of  purifi- 
cation— it  is  no  part  of  bathing,  and  here  Xourpo'v  must  be  taken  in 
the  most  generic  sense  given  to  it  by  Photius,  that  is,  a  system  of 
means  of  purification  or  a  process  of  purification. 

Dr.  Carson  hints  that  the  Xourrjpss  in  the  temples  might  be  for 
bathing  the  hands,  and  the  viTtlripss  for  washing  them  !  p.  73. 
Here  is  the  force  of  theory  with  a  witness.  Let  us  then  listen  to 
Julius  Pollux,  Seg.  46,  Lib.  10,  Cap.  10.  The  caption  is,  con- 
cerning vessels  used  in  washing  hands  and  face,  •ztfs^i'  tojv  sv  rw 
viiers(f6ai  (fxsvuv. 

It  is  necessary,  he  proceeds,  for  one  arising  from  sleep  to  wash 
his  face,  to  if^(}<i(j)ifov  ct'TrovjVTSff'^ai — here  is  no  bathing  as  yet. 
Let  a  boy,  he  proceeds,  bring  an  ewer  or  pitcher,  and  pour  out 
fresh  water  xam  Xs/3r)<roj  73  Xou<ni^iou  tivoV,  in  a  vessel  or  wash- 
basin. He  justifies  himself  in  using  Xouttj^iov  in  this  sense  by 
quoting  a  line  from  Anaxilas,  in  which  he  says,  in  baths  ruTg  (3a- 
\ctvsioi$  there  are  no  wash-basins  (XourTj^ia),  i.  e.  vessels  for  wash- 
ing hands  and  face.  Can  XoJw  mean  to  bathe  by  its  own  force, 
when  XouTTj^iov  is  thus  used  to  denote  a  vessel  in  which  to  wash 
(vjVreiv)  hands  and  face,  and  not  only  so,  but  is  placed  in  pointed 
antithesis  to  bathing  vessels  ?  for  in  baths  surely  there  are"  vessels 
for  bathing,  though  there  are  none  for  face  and  hand-washing. 
Pollux  also  gives  Xovtyj^  (the  word  quoted  by  me  from  the  Fathers), 
as  a  synonyme  of  Xoutij^iov  to  denote  a  wash-basin,  for  washing 


210  DR.  carson's  dissertation  on  AOY*n-  §  66. 

hands  and  face.  All  idea  of  face  and  hand  bathing  is  therefore 
excluded. 

Dr.  Carson  says,  p.  67,  that  "  XoiJw,  like  our  word  bathe,  ap- 
plies to  animal  bodies  only — we  do  not  speak  of  bathing  cloth." 

Nevertheless,  Origen  applies  XouTpov  to  wood,  and  Gregory 
Nazianzen  applies  Xouca;  to  clothes,  and  to  a  couch — and  Eupolis, 
see  Pollux,  applies  ctXourfja  (i.  e.  want  of  washing)  to  a  cloak. 
Surely  these  are  not  animal  bodies. 

Again,  Dr.  Carson  says,  p.  67,  in  order  to  justify  the  applica- 
tion of  v»Vtw  to  the  whole  body  it  must  be  all  successively  wash- 
ed— as  viVtw  involves  friction  or  hand-washing.  And  yet  Euri- 
pides applies  it  to  bathing  a  whole  herd  of  oxen  in  the  sea,  where 
friction,  hand-washing,  etc.,  are  all  out  of  the  question.  Strabo, 
too,  applies  it  to  the  bathing  of  Diana  in  a  river,  where  there  was 
no  probability  of  hand-washing. 

Perhaps  I  have  said  enough  to  illustrate  the  nature  of  "  the 
learned  remarks  of  his  own,"  which  Dr.  Carson  has  added,  and 
his  mode  of  "  touching  the  subject  with  the  hand  of  a  master." 
I  could  add  much  more,  did  my  room  permit,  and  the  patience  of 
my  readers  allow.  I  will  not  complete  the  quotation  with  which 
I  began,  by  adding,  "  Nascitur  ridiculus  mus,"  but  only  state 
that  I  see  no  reason  either  to  add  to  or  take  from  my  statement, 
after  all  of  Dr.  Carson's  effort  to  settle  the  subject. 

Dr.  Carson  says,  I  added  no  learned  observations  of  my  own. 
I  answer,  the  case  seemed  to  me  too  plain  to  need  any.  Nothing 
is  easier  than  to  make  a  useless  parade  of  learning.  But  it  is  of 
no  use  to  waste  time  by  needless  citations  to  prove  points  which 
no  one  denies,  and  at  the  same  time  to  deny  points  without  proof, 
on  which  the  whole  question  hangs. 

I  conclude  then  by  saying,  that  Xouw  of  its  own  force  denotes  to 
wash,  or  to  purify ;  that  in  fact  it  is  more  generally  used  to  de- 
note a  washing  or  purifying  of  the  whole  body,  whether  by  sprink- 
ling, affusion,  or  immersion — but  that  it  is  also  applied  to  wash- 
ing hands,  face,  and  feet — also  to  wood,  clothes,  couches,  cloaks, 
etc.,  though  but  rarely  in  this  last  sense. 

NjVtw  applies  generally  to  washing  of  hands,   face,  and  feet, 


§  67.     DR.  Carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.        211 

also  sometimes,  but  more  rarely,  to  bathing  the  whole  body,  in 
the  case  of  both  men  and  animals.  It  is  also  often  used  by  the 
Fathers,  with  its  compounds,  to  denote  the  cleansing  of  the  mind 
from  sin,  excluding  the  idea  of  hand-washing.  Sometimes 
also  it  is  applied  to  the  washing  of  cups,  vessels  (rfxtu^),  and 
tables. 

nXi^'vw  is  generally  applied  to  clothes — but  also  to  the  body  and 
all  its  parts,  also  to  cups,  metals,  and  various  animal  sub- 
stances. Proof  of  all  these  statements  is  at  hand,  and  could  be 
produced,  if  needed.  But  I  think  that  the  case  is  clear  enough 
as  it  is. 

Dr.  Carson's  principles  and  general  assertions,  as  to  the 
Fathers,  have  passed  under  review  ;  let  us  next  briefly  notice  his 
application  of  them  to  the  details  of  my  argument.  I  shall  now 
consider  the  manner  in  which  he  has  assailed  the  Biblical  argu- 
ment. 

§  67.     Dr.   Carson's  Attack  on  the  Biblical  Argument. 

The  Biblical  argument  is  contained  in  §§  8 — 18.  The  course 
of  the  argument  is  this  :  (1.)  In  John  iii.  25,  the  expression,  a 
dispute  concerning  purifying  (xadapjCfjiou),  proves  that  xa^apitf/xoV 
and  (SaiTTK^^os  are  synonymous,  when  applied  to  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism. (2.)  This  view  explains  the  expectation  that  the  Messiah 
would  baptize,  for  it  was  foretold  that  he  should  purify,  but  not 
that  he  should  immerse.  (3.)  In  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
the  subject,  the  agent,  the  means,  and  the  effect,  demand  the  idea 
to  purify,  and  exclude  the  idea  to  immerse,  for  the  subject  is  the 
spirit  of  man,  the  agent  the  divine  spirit,  the  means  spiritual,  and 
the  effect  purity  ;  and  in  such  relations  the  idea  to  immerse  is  ab- 
surd ;  purify  is  the  only  reasonable  sense.  (4.)  The  end  of  bap- 
tism is  to  indicate  sacrificial  purification,  i.  e.  the  remission  of 
sins.  We  should  naturally  expect  to  find  this  idea  in  its  name, 
and  we  do  find  it  so  used  as  clearly  to  indicate  that  it  has  the  sense 
xa^a^itf/xoff,  i.  e.  sacrificial  purification  or  remission  of  sins.     (5.) 


212       DR.  carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.      §  67. 

In  the  expression,  divers  baptisms,  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  the  word  (Ba-j^. 
TK^lxoi  is  obviously  taken  in  a  generic  sense  to  denote  Mosaic  puri- 
fications of  any  kind.  (6.)  The  baptism  of  couches,  in  Mark 
vii.  4,  8,  and  the  baptism  expected  of  Christ,  in  Luke  xi.  38, 
were  obviously  purifications  merely,  and  not  immersions.  (7.) 
In  speaking  of  the  nightly  baptism  of  Judith  (Jud.  vii.  7)  in  the 
camp  of  Holofernes,  no  doubt  a  mere  purification  is  spoken  of 
without  respect  to  mode,  and  not  an  immersion.  (8.)  In  referring 
to  a  baptism  from  a  dead  body  (Sirach  xxxi.  25),  no  dcub'  the 
word  is  used  in  the  generic  sense  to  denote  purification.  (9.) 
The  account  of  purification  from  sin  in  the  baptism  of  Paul 
(Acts  xxvi.  16),  and  Peter's  effort  to  guard  the  mind  against  the 
idea  of  mere  external  purification,  and  to  direct  the  mind  to  the 
purging  of  the  conscience  by  the  atonement,  show  that  purifica- 
tion was  the  usual  religious  sense  of  the  word.  (10.)  In  that 
part  of  the  Greek  language,  in  which  alone  we  ought  to  look  for 
decisive  evidence  on  this  subject,  there  is  no  opposing  evidence  to 
be  found  ;  hence  the  case  is  decided  in  favor  of  the  sense  to  purify, 
and  against  the  sense  to  immerse. 

In  weighing  the  force  of  this  argument  it  is  necessary  to  re- 
member, that,  whatever  the  practice  was  in  fact,  even  if  it  was 
immersion,  it  does  not  in  any  sense  disprove  this  argument  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  ;  but  only  shows  that  under  a  command  to 
purify,  they  did  in  fact  purify  by  immersion.  But  I  do  not  at  all 
concede  that  in  the  Apostolic  days  it  was  customary  to  baptize 
by  immersion.  The  fact,  I  am  persuaded,  was  directly  the  re- 
verse. But  I  mention  this  consideration,  that  no  illogical  imagi- 
nations or  associations  of  ideas  may  entangle  the  mind  or  break 
the  force  of  the  argument. 

Let  it  also  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  argument  is  strictly 
cumulative,  and  that  its  force  is  to  be  tested  by  the  coherence  and 
accumulated  force  of  its  parts. 

How,  then,  does  Dr.  Carson  attempt  to  answer  it  ?  First,  by 
attempting  to  break  it  up  into  disconnected  fragments ;  then,  in 
each  fragment  trying  to  prove  that  the  highest  possible  evidence 


§  67.      DR.  Carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.        213 

of  my  position  is  not  given  ;  that  the  sense  immerse  is  possible  ;  and 
then  bringing  in  what  he  calls  the  testimony  of  the  word  ^a-Trn'^w. 
The  illogical  nature  of  this  whole  process  I  have  fully  shown. 
I  have  also,  by  evidence  most  unanswerable,  shown  that  the  word 
/ja-Trn'^w  does  not  in  these  cases  testify  as  he  alleges,  but  that  it 
testifies  directly  against  him,  and  most  fully  and  decidedly  in  my 
favor.     Hence, 

1.  On  the  ground  on  which  I  first  put  the  argument,  i.  e.  the 
principles  of  moral  and  cumulative  evidence,  it  remains  un- 
answered and  with  unbroken  force. 

2.  On  Dr.  Carson's  own  ground  it  remains  unanswered  and 
with  unbroken  force.     I  add, 

3.  That  the  truth  of  every  main  point  in  the  argument  can  be 
sustained  by  direct  philological  evidence  from  the  Fathers,  and 
that  to  any  required  degree  of  strength. 

To  illustrate  this  last  assertion,  let  us  consider  the  leading 
points  of  the  argument. 

1.  Dr.  Carson  assails  my  argument  from  John  iii.  25.  He 
denies  that  the  "  question"  spoken  of  had  any  reference  to 
baptism  at  all.  For  example,  on  p.  432,  he  asserts  that  the 
question  spoken  of  "  was  not  caused  by  the  concurrence  of  two 
claims  to  baptize ;  for  these  claims  are  never  mentioned  with  re- 
gard to  the  dispute.  If  we  had  not  the  document  in  our  hands, 
we  should  be  led  to  think  from  Mr.  Beecher's  representation,  that 
the  dispute  was  between  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  disciples  of 
Jesus  with  respect  to  conflicting  claims  between  their  masters  ;"  on 
p.  430,  he  says,  "  the  dispute  had  no  relation  to  the  baptism  of 
John  and  Jesus ;  the  dispute  does  not  imply  the  existence  of  the 
baptism  of  Jesus,  or  even  of  himself."  In  various  other  forms 
and  with  great  positiveness  he  repeats  it.  He  also  sharply  as- 
serts that  the  question  concerning  purification  was  not  a  question 
concerning  baptism.  On  the  other  hand  Chrysostom,  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Theophylact,  expressly  testify 
that  the  question  concerning  ■purification  was  simply  and  only  a 
question  concerning  baptism.     Chrysostom   thus  speaks,  "  That 


214       DR.  Carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.      §  67. 

the  baptisms,  i.  e.  of  John  and  Jesus,  did  not  differ  in  claims  the 
context  shows.  What  is  this  ?  There  was  a  dispute  between 
the  disciples  of  John  and  a  Jew  concerning  purification.  For  the 
disciples  of  John,  being  jealous  of  the  disciples  of  Christ,  and  of 
Christ  himself,  when  they  saw  them  baptizing,  began  to  dispute 
with  those  who  were  baptized,  as  if  their  own  baptism  was  superior 
in  its  claims  to  that  of  Christ,  and  taking  one  of  the  baptized  they 
tried  to  convince  him,  but  did  not  succeed."  In  like  manner,  Theo- 
phylact  says,  on  Jn.  iii.  25,  '^  syivsro  ^7}Tri(fis  <:fspi  rov  (3a<jrri(fiJ.aTos. 
There  was  a  dispute  concerning  baptism,  between  the  disciples 
of  John,  moved  with  rivalry,  and  a  certain  Jew.  For  the  Jew 
placed  the  claims  of  the  baptism  of  Christ  before  those  of  John,  but 
the  disciples  of  John  gave  the  precedence  to  the  claims  of  their 
master's  baptism."  Thus  it  appears,  beyond  all  doubt,  that  the 
question  concerning  purification  was  simply  and  only  a  question 
concerning  baptism.  Nor  is  this  all ;  as  if  to  make  assurance 
doubly  sure,  Theophylact,  after  having  thus  called  the  question  a 
question  concerning  baptism,  and  then  stated  its  point,  proceeds 
next  to  call  it  a  question  concerning  purification,  and  then  to  add 
as  its  synonyme  baptism.  He  thus  expressly  gives  ^cLitrid^LOi  as 
an  equivalent  of  xo^a^itfjui-oV.  For,  after  stating  the  subject  of  the 
question  just  as  I  do,  he  proceeds  to  say  of  the  disciples  of  John, 
and  the  Jews,  ^7]T7)(fa.\T£s  Ss  m'Spi  xa^apitfjaou  rjroi  l3oi<jc'Ti(f^a,TQs 
rfpo(iia(fi  Tw  auTOJv  SiSadxaXu),  "  disputing  concerning  purification, 
that  is,  baptism,  they  came  to  their  master."  Nor  are  these 
words  .  equivalent  merely  as  names  of  the  same  rite,  as  Dr. 
Carson  suggests,  but  they  are  equivalent  in  idea,  as  I  have  else- 
where often  and  fully  shown.  Hence  purification  is  not  a  mere 
name  of  the  rite,  like  "  illumination,"  "  anointing,"  "  the  gift," 
"grace,"  "the  seal,"  &c.  It  is  the  meaning  of  the  word 
baptism  ;  and  baptism  is  purification,  and  not  immersion. 

2.  Again,  Dr.  Carson  treats  with  very  great  contempt  the 
second  point,  that  this  view  explains,  by  a  reference  to  Old  Tes- 
tament prophecies,  the  expectation  that  the  Messiah  would 
baptize.     This   I  illustrated   by    a  reference   to  Malachi.     He 


§  67.      DR.  Carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.        215 

thinks  the  argument  so  contemptible  that  it  "  deserves  no  atten- 
tion." "  It  requires  more  than  the  patience  of  Job  to  be  able  to 
mention  such  an  argument  without  expressing  strong  feeling." 
"  This  argument  manifests  such  a  want  of  discrimination,  and 
confusion  of  things  which  differ,  that  the  mind  on  which  it  has 
force  must  be  essentially  deficient  in  those  powers  that  qualify 
for  the  discussion  of  critical  questions." 

What,  then,  are  the  facts  ?  They  are  these.  The  Fathers, 
in  commenting  on  those  passages  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  which 
it  is  predicted  that  the  Messiah  should  purify,  do  regard  them  as 
predictions  that  he  should  baptize,  and  state  explicitly  that  the 
words  (Suirri^u  and  xa^a^i'^w  mean  the  same  thing.  Of  this, 
Basil's  comment  on  Is.  iv.  4,  §  55,  is  an  unanswerable  proof.  In 
the  Old  Testament  it  is  said  concerning  the  Messiah  sxt^XuvsT  and 
ixxu^a^isT.  In  the  New,  John  says  ^aitriifsi,  and  Basil  says  they 
mean  the  same  thing ;  and  then  defines  (SaitrKt^^a  as  meaning 
xa6a^i(fli6g. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Eusebius,  of  Cesarea,  sustains  the  same  view. 
Commenting  on  this  passage,  he  says  that  the  preposition  sv  is 
used  in  the  causative  sense,  when  applied  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  not 
only  in  this  passage,  but  in  the  New  Testament  too ;  for  he  says 
that  the  expressions  sv  m'vsvixari  x^idsug  xai  sv  itvsvixwn  xaC(fS(^s,  by 
the  spirit  of  judgment,  and  by  the  spirit  of  burning,  in  Is.  iv.  4, 
are  equivalent  to  the  expressions  sv  "Trvsu/xan  ayioj  xai  iru^i,  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  fire  in  the  New  Testament.  Hence  he  pointedly 
excludes  the  idea  of  immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  gives  in 
its  place  purification  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  whole  comment 
of  Eusebius  is  this :  "  Observe  whether  this  passage  is  not,  to  a 
remarkable  degree,  coincident  in  sense  with  the  evangelic  testi- 
mony concerning  our  Saviour.  '  He  shall  baptize  you  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  with  firej'  for  the  expression  '  by  the  spirit  of 
judgment  and  the  spirit  of  burning,'  does  not  at  all  diflfer  in  sense 
from  the  expression  by  'the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire.'  In  the  one  case 
(Is.  iv.  4)  fiery  words  reproving  them,  produced  a  purification 


216       DR.  Carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.      §  67. 


r»v)  of  sins,  and  in  like  manner,  of  our  Saviour  in  the 
gospel  it  is  said,  he  shall  purify  dowifT'Kfsi),  not  with  water  but  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire." 

In  regarding  Is.  iv.  4,  as  a  prophecy  of  baptism,  Origen, 
Eusebius,  Basil,  Jerome,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Theodoret,  all 
coincide.  And  just  as  clearly  do  Theodoret  and  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria regard  Mai.  iii.  3,  to  which  I  referred,  as  a  prophecy  of 
baptism  ;  and  the  same  is  true  of  other  passages  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, in  which  it  is  foretold  that  the  Messiah  shall  purify. 

Inasmuch,  then,  as  it  was  foretold  that  the  Messiah  should 
purify,  and  inasmuch  as  purify  and  baptize  are,  by  the  testimony 
of  the  Fathers,  synonymous,  it  was  of  course  foretold  that  the 
Messiah  should  baptize.  And  predictions  that  he  should  baptize, 
would  of  course  awaken  an  expectation  that  he  would  baptize. 
Hence  this  expectation  is  accounted  for  as  I  stated. 

In  what  manner  he  should  baptize  is  not  foretold,  and  no  doubt 
all  these  predictions  had  primary  reference  to  spiritual  purifica- 
tion, and  could  have  been  fulfilled  had  no  external  rite  of  purifica- 
tion been  ordained.  But  so  soon  as  a  rite  of  purification  was  es- 
tablished by  the  forerunner  of  the  Messiah,  it  would  at  once  call 
up  to  the  minds  of  all,  the  great  purifier,  so  long  foretold,  so  long 
expected,  and  raise  the  inquiry,  Is  John  he  ?  If  not,  why  does 
he  purify  ? 

And  when  the  attention  was  thus  aroused,  it  would  of  course 
lead  John  to  unfold  to  the  people  the  nature  of  that  spiritual 
purification,  of  which  his  purification  by  water  was  but  a  type. 

What  struck  my  mind,  was  this.  The  language  of  the  New 
Testament,  as  to  baptism  by  the  Messiah,  is  exactly  such  as  is 
used  in  the  Old  Testament  with  reference  to  purification  by  the 
Messiah.  In  the  Old  Testament,  a  purification  by  the  Spirit  and 
by  fire  was  spoken  of;  in  the  New,  a  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  by  fire.  An  immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire  was 
manifestly  absurd  ;  hence  I  could  not  resist  the  conviction  that 
the  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  modes  of  expression  were 


§  67.         DR.  CARSO:^'s  ATTACK  ON  THE  BIBLICAL  ARGUMENT.  217 

equivalent,:.  And  it  appears  that  this  mode  of  reasoning  led  me  to 
the  truth,  notwhhstanding  Dr.  Carson  is  pleased  to  treat  it  with 
such  utter  contempt.  ^ 

Indeed,  I  would  not  fear  to  risk  the  whole  question  on  the  com- 
ments on  Is.  iv.  4,  of  the  six  Fathers  named  above.  In  some 
minor  particulars  they  disagree,  some  referring  the  purification 
by  fire  to  this  world,  others  to  the  world  to  come,  some  to  literal 
fire,  others  to  spiritual,  but  all  agreeing  in  one  point,  that  to 
baptize  and  to  purify  mean  precisely  the  same  thing.  Even, 
therefore,  though  Dr.  Carson  should  continue  to  despise  this  argu- 
ment, still  the  truth  will  nevertheless  continue  to  be  justified  of 
her  children. 

3.  The  testimony  of  the  Fathers  on  the  third  point,  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  no  less  abundant.  All  the  evidence  pro- 
duced on  the  last  point  applies  with  equal  force  to  this,  for  it  is  to 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  they  refer  these  predictions  of 
purification  in  the  days  of  the  Messiah.  Moreover,  they  saw 
types  of  this  baptism  in  the  fire  that  came  down  from  heaven  and 
consumed  the  sacrifice  of  Elijah,  and  in  the  fire  kindled  by 
Nehemiah,  according  to  the  2d  book  of  Maccabees,  by  sprinkling 
water. 

Thus,  said  they,  in  the  baptism  of  fire,  a  divine  and  heavenly 
fire  descends  from  above,  and  enters  into  the  heart,  and  purges 
out  the  dross  of  sin,  and  makes  us  pure. 

Nor  is  this  view  sustained  by  the  Fathers  alone.  It  originates 
from  the  very  nature  of  things.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  neither 
figuratively  nor  literally  a  river,  lake,  or  pool,  but  a  living,  intel- 
ligent being,  from  whom  an  illuminating  and  purifying  influence 
goes  forth,  as  light  and  heat  from  the  sun.  Hence  we  are  not 
spoken  of  as  immersed  in  him,  but  purified  by  him ;  hence,  too, 
it  is  proper  to  speak  of  his  influences  as  poured  out  or  descending 
as  the  rain,  or  going  forth  as  the  light  or  fire. 

A  few  illustrations  of  these  views  from  Cyril   of  Alexandria 
must  suflice.     He  refers,  Mai.  iii.  1 — 3,  to  the  baptism  of  Christ, 
and  thus  proceeds :  "  This  divine  fire  from  heaven,  that  is,  gracious 
•  10 


218         Dii.  Carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.     §  67. 

influence,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  it  enters  into  the  heart, 
then,  then  indeed  it  cleanses  away  the  pollutions  of  our  former 
transgress^hs,  and  makes  us  pure  (y.sxa&a^^i^jo-^s)-  This  divine 
and  spiritual  lire  the  inspired  John  clearly  announced,  saying, 
"  I  indeed  purify  ((SwrrTi^u)  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  purify 
you  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire."  Here  the  fiery  influence  is 
conceived  of  as  coming  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  entering  and 
purifying  tlie  heart.  Moreover,  Cyril  here  agrees  Avith  Origen, 
Basil,  and  others,  in  considering  the  language  of  John  as  referring 
to  and  taken  from  those  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  which 
predict  of  the  Messiah,  purification,  and  that  alone.  And  Cyril 
oft  repeats  the  same  ideas  in  other  parts  of  his  works.  But  his 
comment  on  Is.  iv.  4,  is  still  more  striking.  He  first  refers  the 
passage,  as  Basil  does,  to  the  baptism  of  Christ,  and  then  explains 
the  spirit  of  burning  thus  :  '•'  We  call  it  grace  which  comes  into 
us  at  the  holy  baptism,  not  without  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
For  we  are  not  baptized  by  mere  water,  nor  by  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer  (indeed  we  are  sprinkled  for  the  purity  of  the  flesh  alone, 
as  says  the  blessed  Paul),  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by  divine 
and  spiritual  fire,  which  consumes  all  the  pollutions  of  wickedness 
in  us,  and  melts  out  the  pollution  of  sin.  Such  a  coming  of  our 
Saviour  also,  another  of  the  holy  prophets  foretold,  saying,  "  Be- 
hold  he  shall  come  as  a  refiner's  fire,  and  as  fuller's  soap,  and  he 
shall  sit  and  purify  as  gold  and  as  silver."  His  reference  to 
baptizing  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  I  have  already  noticed  ;  and  I 
now  remark  that  through  the  whole  passage  he  refers  to  a  divine 
influence  proceeding  from  God,  which  he  calls  spiritual  fire,  itup- 
vor^To'v,  which  enters  the  heart  and  consumes  and  melts  out  the 
pollution  of  sin.  He  also  in  this  passage  unites  both  Is.  iv.  4 
and  Mai.  iii.  1 — 3,  as  predictions  of  the  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  by  fire,  to  be  introduced  by  Christ. 

But  how  does  Dr.  Carson  hold  his  ground  against  my  position, 
that  the  sense  immerse  is  never  transferred  in  any  language  to 
denote  effects  like  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  By  giving  me 
a  lesson  in  Rhetoric.     Let  us  hear  it.     "  Mr.  Beecher  has  adopted 


§  67.         DR.  CARSON'S  ATTACK  ON  THE  BIBLICAL  ARGUMENT.  219 

some  of  my  philosophical  doctrines.  I  will  give  him  another 
lesson  which  will  prevent  him  from  again  alleging  such  an  ob- 
jection. Metaphor  is  not  bound  to  find  examples  to  justify  its 
particular  figures,  but  may  indulge  itself  wherever  it  finds  re- 
semblance. It  gives  words  a  new  application,  but  does  not  invest 
them  with  a  new  meaning.  It  is  not  then  subject  to  the  law  of 
literal  language,  which  for  the  sense  of  every  word  needs  the 
authority  of  use.  This  I  have  established  in  my  treatise  on  the 
figures  of  speech,  in  opposition  to  the  common  doctrine  of  the 
rhetoricians.  With  respect  to  the  point  in  hand,  I  would  maintain 
my  ground  if  a  single  other  example  of  the  figurative  use  of  this 
word  could  not  be  adduced."  I  do  not  doubt  it.  Anything  sooner 
than  to  admit  that  ftantTl^o)  means  to  purify.  But  with  all  due 
deference  to  my  teacher  in  rhetoric,  I  would  say,  that  this  lesson 
does  not  exclude  my  objection.  He  says  metaphor  may  indulge 
itself  wherever  it  finds  resemhlance.  This  is  well  said  :  it  is  the 
truth.  But  my  objection  is  that  there  is  no  resemhlance  between 
the  operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  immersion.  The  Holy 
Spirit  illuminates  and  purifies.  Immersion  as  such  does  neither. 
It  signifies  mode,  and  nothing  else — and  it  may  pollute  as  well  as 
purify.  For  this  reason,  I  deny  the  propriety  of  its  application  to 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  claim  the  sense  to  purify,  for  this  is  his  glori- 
ous, grand,  peculiar  work.  Dr.  Carson's  lesson  in  rhetoric,  there- 
fore, is  of  no  avail. 

4.  No  less  clear  is  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  as  to  the  fourth 
point,  namely,  that  f^a'XrKfiicc  denotes  sacrificial  purification,  or 
the  remission  of  sins.  Indeed,  I  have  adduced  already  so  much 
of  their  testimony  on  this  point,  that  to  add  anything  more  is 
needless.  See  §§  25,  26,  pp.  61-68,  and  §§  53,  54,  pp.  160-170. 
Dr.  Carson  is  pleased  to  treat  with  great  contempt  my  remarks  in 
§  12,  pp.  28-31,  designed  to  illustrate  the  difference  between 
sacrificial  and  moral  purification.  "  Mr.  Beecher,"  he  says, 
"gives  us  a  dissertation  on  purification  which  is  no  more  to  the 
purpose  than  a  treatise  on  logarithms."     That  Dr.  Carson  did 


220        DR.  Carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.     §  67. 

not  comprehend  the  nature  or  importance  of  the  distinction  made 
by  me,  or  its  extensive  bearings  in  the  discussion  of  the  whole 
question,  I  freely  admit.  But  ignorance  and  contempt  of  what 
we  do  not  understand,  are  not  arguments. 

So  far  is  it  from  being  true  that  my  distinction  is  nothing  to 
the  purpose,  that  on  the  other  hand,  without  it,  it  is  impossible 
that  much  of  the  language  of  the  Fathers  on  baptism  should  be 
understood  at  all.  Sprinkling  with  blood  is  not  an  immersion,  nor 
is  it  a  washing,  nor  is  it  in  the  common  sense  of  the  term  a  purifi- 
cation, for  blood  of  itself  defiles.  But  the  shedding  of  blood 
secures  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  sprinkling  of  blood  is  an 
expiation,  that  is,  a  sacrificial  purification.  And  if  it  were  not 
for  this  view,  the  language  of  the  Fathers,  when  they  speak  of 
sprinklings  of  blood  as  baptisms,  could  not  be  understood.  But 
take  this  view  and  all  is  plain.  Indeed,  it  furnishes  an  argument 
against  the  sense  immerse,  of  irresistible  power.  And  although 
this  is  not  much  to  Dr.  Carson's  purpose,  it  is  very  much  to  mine. 
Let  any  one  trace  this  usage  out,  in  all  its  applications  to  the 
baptism  of  blood,  and  the  Mosaic  and  heathen  expiations,  and  he 
will  then  be  able  to  judge,  both  of  the  indispensable  necessity  and 
extensive  application  of  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  disserta- 
tion, in  §  12,  of  which  Dr.  Carson  speaks  so  contemptuously. 

5.  On  the  fifth  point,  the  divers  baptisms  spoken  of  in  Heb.  ix. 
10,  the  evidence  from  the  Fathers  is  absolutely  overwhelming. 
As  we  have  seen,  they  include  without  hesitation  all  the  sprink- 
lings of  the  Mosaic  ritual,  whether  with  blood  or  with  the  ashes 
of  a  heifer.  Indeed,  one  passage  from  Ambrose,  of  itself,  were 
there  no  other,  would  be  enough  to  settle  this  question  for  ever. 
Apol.  David,  §  59  :  "  Per  hyssopi  fasciculum  adspergebatur  agni 
sanguine,  qui  mundari  volebat  typico  baptismate."  He  who  de- 
sired to  be  purified  with  a  typical  baptism,  was  sprinkled  with 
the  blood  of  a  lamb,  by  means  of  a  bunch  of  hyssop.  Compare 
now  with  this,  other  similar  cases  in  §  53,  pp.  160-167,  and  all 
occasion  for  doubt  must  cease. 


§  67.      DR.  Carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.        221 

These  are  the  leading  and  most  important  points  in  the  biblical 
argument,  and  on  them  all,  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  is  as  full 
and  explicit  as  could  be  desired. 

I  was  peculiarly  struck  with  the  commentary  of  Theophylact 
on  John  iii.  25.  I  had  not  read  it  when  I  gave  my  view  in  §  8, 
pp.  22-25.  And  yet  the  coincidence  is  nearly  as  perfect  as  if 
I  had  taken  his  exposition  as  the  basis  of  my  own.  It  was  pecu- 
liarly gratifying  to  me  to  find  the  argument  from  this  passage  so 
clearly  and  fully  sustained  by  the  Fathers,  as  it  was  by  means 
of  this  passage,  that  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  I  humbly  trust,  first  gave 
me  an  insight  into  the  true  meaning  of  this  word.  Dr.  Carson's 
only  argument  against  this  view  is  a  series  of  unproved  assertions  ; 
that  the  question  about  purifying  was  not  a  question  about  bap- 
tism, and  that  it  had  no  reference  to  the  claims  of  Jesus  or  John  ; 
and  that  the  disputants  said  nothing  to  John  as  to  the  question 
about  purification,  but  stated  one  entirely  different.  In  all  this, 
not  only  are  the  Fathers  against  Dr.  Carson,  but  the  most  mature 
results  of  modern  criticism  are  against  him.  Schleusner,  Wahl, 
Vater,  Rosenmiiller,  De  Wette,  Bretschncider,  -Kuinoel,  and  even 
Professor  Ripley  himself,  are  against  him  on  these  points.  They 
all  agree  that  baptism  was  the  subject  of  the  question  ;  and 
Rosenmiiller.  Vater,  Kuinoel,  and  Schleusner,  give  baptism  as  the 
translation  of  xa^apjCixoG".  Doederlin  takes  the  same  view.  The 
following  translation  of  the  passage  will  present  the  true  sense 
and  the  argument  at  once  to  the  eye. 

"  After  these  things  came  Jesus  and  his  disciples  into  the  land 
of  Judea,  and  there  he  tarried  with  them  and  'purified.  And 
Jolin  was  purifying  in  iEnon,  near  Salim,  because  there  was 
much  water  there,  and  they  came  to  him  and  were  purified. 
Therefore,  there  arose  a  question  concerning  purifiication  between 
some  of  the  disciples  of  John  and  the  Jews,  and  they  came  unto 
John  and  said  unto  him.  Rabbi,  he  that  was  with  thee  beyond 
Jordan,  to  whom  thou  barest  witness,  behold  the  same  purifiieth, 
and  all  men  come  to  him !"  As  if  Christ  was  improperly  drawing 
men   away  from   John's  purification.     In  reply  to   all   this,  John 


222        DR.  carson's  attack  on  the  biblical  argument.     §  67. 

clearly  avowed  the  superiority  of  Christ  to  himself,  and  justified 
his  course. 

Having  considered  the  chief  points,  let  us  now  review  the  re- 
mainder. 

6.  As  to  the  baptism  of  couches,  in  Mark  vii.  4,  we  have  seen 
that  the  Fathers  not  only  speak  of  this,  but  of  baptizing  men  on 
couches ;  so  that  all  possibility  of  evading  the  sense  to  purify  is 
taken  away.  Moreover,  in  the  Apostolic  Const,  vi.  6,  a  certain 
Jewish  sect  is  spoken  of,  concerning  whom  it  is  said,  "  unless 
they  baptize  themselves  daily  they  eat  not,  still  further,  unless 
they  purify — xa^a^wtfjv — w4th  water  their  couches,  and  plates,  and 
cups,  and  goblets,  and  seats,  they  will  not  use  them  at  all." 
That  the  author  of  these  words  did  not  believe  in  the  immersion 
of  couches,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  he  obviously  takes  pains  to 
use  xadai^c,)  in  place  of  /ija'TTTi'^w.  That  in  this  passage  there  is  a 
direct  reference  to  Mark  vii.  4,  is  too  plain  to  need  proof.  It  is 
no  less  plain  that  in  Luke  xi.  38,  the  Fathers  regarded  the  bap- 
tism required  of  Jesus  as  a  purification,  and  not  an  immersion,  for 
Theophylact  says  of  Christ,  that  he  was  deriding  their  foolish  cus- 
tom of  purifying  themselves  before  they  ate,  and  takes  particular 
pains  to  substitute  xa&a^'i^u)  in  place  of /Sa-rr'Ti^w.  "Deriding 
their  foolish  custom,  I  mean  their  purifying — xadapl^srf&ai — them- 
selves before  eating,  he  teaches  that  they  ought  to  purify  their 
souls  by  good  works."  He  then  adds,  for  washing  the  hands — 
vlitTSddai — by  water,  purifies  the  body  only,  not  the  soul.  This 
use  of  viVTSC^ai  clearly  denotes  that  Theophylact  regarded  the 
baptism  expected  of  Jesus  as  a  washing  of  the  hands.  More 
proof  could  be  added,  but  surely  this  is  enough. 

No  one  can  any  longer  doubt  what  is  meant  by  baptizing  from  a 
dead  body,  in  Sirachxxxi.  25,  after  reading  in  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
of  a  baptism  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer.  Cyril  also  uses  xa^ap(fig 
in  the  same  relations.  Ashes  with  water  is  a  purification — xaQa^cfis 
— to  the  defiled.  Here,  too,  I  remark,  in  passing,  is  an  idiom  of 
the  same  kind  as  that  noticed  in  §  52,  in  which  purifying  agents 
are  called  baptisms.     Here  ashes  with  water  is  said  to  be  a  puri- 


§  67.         DK.  CAKSON's  attack  on  the  biblical  ARGUIVIENT.  223 

ficalion,  i.  c.  a  baptism.     Dr.  Carson's  objection   from   Xour^ov  I 
have  fully  answered. 

Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  doubt  the  sacrificial  sense  alleged 
by  me  in  Acts  xxii.  16;  and  1  Pet.  iii.  21.  Arise,  be  puri- 
fied or  expiated,  is  the  import  of  the  command,  and  refers  mani- 
festly to  the  rite.  Wash  away  thy  sins,  refers  as  plainly  to  the 
result  prayed  for  when  the  name  of  God  was  invoked,  and  which 
is  shadowed  forth  by  the  rite,  and  in  true  believers  comes  to  pass, 
i.  e.  the  purification  of  the  mind  from  sin.  Dr.  Carson  says, 
this  makes  the  pardon  of  sins  to  be  conferred  at  baptism.  So  it 
is,  if  forgiveness  is  prayed  for  in  faith.  Sins  are  washed  away  by 
calling  on  the  Lord  for  pardon,  and  the  same  is  true  of  sins  com- 
mitted after  baptism.  We  need  forgiveness  of  sins  daily,  and 
daily  we  pray  for  it  and  receive  it ;  and  at  the  hour  of  baptism 
sins  are  no  less  forgiven,  if  the  prayer  of  faith  is  offered,  than  at 
any  other  time,  and  the  external  rite  is  designed  to  announce  and 
show  forth  this  fact.  This  is  not  baptismal  regeneration,  nor  any- 
thing like  it.  The  usus  loquendi  is  plainly  on  my  side.  Dr. 
Carson's  philosophical  and  theological  objections  are  of  no  weight. 
As  to  1  Pet.  iii.  21,  the  Fathers  are  decidedly  against  Dr.  Car- 
son.  He  says,  "  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved  by  being  buried 
in  the  water  of  the  flood  :  and  after  the  flood  they  emerged  as 
rising  from  the  grave."  Now,  it  is  not  true,  in  fact,  that  Noah 
and  his  family  were  ever  buried  in  the  waters  of  the  flood,  nor 
that  they  emerged  from  them,  nor  did  the  Fathers  ever  so  regard 
it.  The  wicked  were  buried  in  the  waters  of  the  flood.  Noah 
and  his  family,  according  to  the  Fathers,  were  purified,  and  thus 
saved.  See  §  28,  6.  So  also  Cyprian  says,  "  Qui  cum  Noe 
in  Area  non  fuerunt,  non  tantum  purgati  et  salvati  per  aquamnon 
sunt,  sed  statim  illo  diluvio  perierunt."'  Those  who  were  not  in 
the  ark  with  Noah,  not  only  were  not  purified  and  savedhy  water, 
but  perished  at  once  by  that  deluge.  According  to  the  Fathers, 
those  in  the  ark  were  saved  by  purification,  those  out  of  it  were 
destroyed  by  immersion.     All  this  perfectly  accords  with  the  usus 


r2'2-i         DR.  CARSON 'S  REPLY  TO  THE  FATHERS.        §  68. 

loquendi  of  [Sa'n'TKf^a  which  I  have  clearly  established,  and  with 
the  obvious  import  of  the  passage. 

§  GS.     Dr.   Carsoyi's  Reply  to  the  Argujiients  from  the  Fathers. 

Dr.  Carson's  mode  of  meeting  my  arguments  from  the  Fathers 
(in  §  21)  next  demands  notice.  "  Well,  how  does  Mr.  Beecher 
bring  out  his  proof?  If  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  prove  that 
they  understood  this  word  in  Mr.  Beecher's  sense,  must  not  Mr. 
Beecher  prove  this  by  alleging  examples  of  the  use  of  the  word 
in  this  sense  ?  Common  Sense,  What  do  you  say  ?  But  Mr. 
Beecher  attempts  no  such  thing.  He  does  not  appeal  to  the  use  of 
the  word  by  the  Fathers,  but  to  other  words  applied  by  the  Fathers 
to  tlie  same  ordinance."  And  yet  my  argument  stands  thus.  "  1. 
The  earlier  Christian  writers  do  not  so  often  use  the  word  fSwrfTi- 
^w,  as  some  synonyme  derived  from  the  sense  to  purify,  e.  g. 
«vay£vvaw  as  before  stated.  2.  They  often  use  /Sa-TrriCixo^  in  the 
legal  and  sacrificial  sense,  so  as  to  exclude  any  idea  hut  xadctpKfjxos. 
3.  They  sometimes  in  describing  the  rite  use  xadaipw  or  xa^apj^w 
alone."  How  then  does  Dr.  Carson  dare  to  say  that  I  attempt  no 
such  thing  as  alleging  examples  of  the  use  of  the  word  ?  Do 
not  the  three  examples  from  Chrysostom  and  Theophylact  each 
contain  the  v.'ord  ,Su<Ti(fix6g  1  And  do  I  not  argue  to  prove  that 
it  means  purification  ?  All  this  was  before  Dr.  Carson's  eyes. 
Nay,  after  «ix  pages,  he  refers  to  it,  and  tries  to  answer  it.  Dr. 
Carson  may  be  able  to  explain  all  tliis.  I  frankly  confess  I  can- 
not. After  this  false  statement  of  my  argument,  he  proceeds  : 
"  Now  I  do  not  charge  my  opponent  with  dishonesty  in  the  use 
of  this  argument.  I  do  him  the  justice  to  believe  that  he  is  the 
dupe  of  his  own  sophistry.  But  it  is  a  sophistry  childishly  weak. 
I  have  already  disposed  of  this  argument.  It  assumes  as  an  axiom 
that  Vrords  that  apply  to  the  same  ordinance  are  identical  in  signi- 
fication."  To  this  I  reply,  I  make  no  such  assumption.  My  ar- 
gument is  moral  and  cumulative.  If  ^a-TTi^w  means  to  purify, 
we  should  expect  to  find  ?ca^a^i^w  and  other  synonymous  words 


§  68.  DR.  cakson's  reply  to  the  fathers.  '  225 

used  in  its  place.  It  would  be  strange  if  we  did  not.  It  could 
be  used  as  an 'argument  against  us  if  it  were  not  so.  If  we  do, 
then  this  class  of  facts  is  as  we  should  reasonably  expect  to  find 
them.  And  this  in  its  place  and  relations  is  a  true  and  powerful 
part  of  a  cumulative  argument.  Another  view  of  the  matter  is 
indeed  possible,  for  I  never  denied  that  one  word  could  be  used  in 
the  place  of  another,  and  yet  not  be  synonymous  with  it.  Thus 
in  arguing  on  John  iii.  25,  there  arose  a  question  between  some 
of  John's  disciples  and  the  Jews  about  purifying.  I  first  prove 
by  the  context  that  this  dispute  related  in  fact  to  baptism ;  and, 
inasmuch  as  xu^a^Kfij.ov  is  used  in  its  place,  I  infer  in  view  of  all 
the  facts  of  the  case,  that  xk&oL^dig  and  /Sa-TrTKr/xo^are  synonymous, 
because  all  probabilities  tend  this  way.  I  then  remark — "  It  is 
of  no  avail  to  talk  of  possible  senses.  The  question  is  not  what 
is  possible,  but  what  is  a  rational  inference  from  a  fair  view  of 
the  facts  of  the  case  ;  and  this  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  is  that  /Sa-r- 
TiCixoV  and  xa^a^jtffxo^  are  synonymous."  In  this  language  I 
plainly  intimate  that  another  view  is  possible,  but  not  probable. 
Hear  now  Dr.  Carson  :  "  I  could  admit  that  purification  here  re- 
fers to  baptism  specifically,  and  still  defeat  President  Beecher. 
He  has  labored  in  vain.  He  builds  on  a  false  first  principle. 
He  assumes  that  if  two  words  refer  to  the  same  ordinance,  they 
must  be  identical  in  meaning.  Nothing  is  more  unfounded — 
palpably  unfounded.  There  are  situations  in  which  two  words 
may  be  interchanged  at  the  option  of  the  writer,  while  they  are 
not  perfectly  synonymous.  They  may  so  far  agree  that  they 
may  be  equally  fitted  to  fill  a  situation,  while  each  has  a  distinct 
meaning.  This  is  so  obvious  a  truth,  that  I  am  perfectly  as- 
tonished that  it  should  lie  hid  from  the  President  of  the  College 
of  Illinois,"  pp.  432-33.  To  this  I  reply,  I  had  well  weighed 
the  principle  before  writing  my  articles.  It  is  simply  the  second 
of  Dr.  Carson's  canons  of  trial,  as  I  have  numbered  them.  No 
man  who  had  ever  noticed  the  pomp  and  authority  with  which 
Dr.  Carson  introduced  it  in  his  work  on  baptism  as  a  profound 
discovery,  could  ever  forget  it  again.     I  shall  not  pretend   to  de- 

10* 


226  DR.  carson's  reply  to  the  fathers.  §  68. 

cide  whether  so  profound  a  truth  had  lain  hid  from  the  world  un- 
til Dr.  Carson  arose.  I  shall  not  dare  to  afRrm  that  I  had  ever 
thought  of  such  a  thing  before  reading  the  pages  of  Dr.  Carson. 
But  surely  after  a  repeated  examination  of  his  work  on  baptism, 
my  ignorance  must  have  been  dispersed.  And  yet  in  full  view 
of  this  canon,  I  dared  to  affirm,  and  do  still  affirm,  that  a  rational 
inference  from  a  fair  view  of  the  facts  of  the  case  is,  that  /3a<7r- 
TitfjxoV  and  xaSa^Kfixos  are  synonymous  in  John  iii.  25,  and  /Sa-r- 
Tj^w  and  xa&api^u  in  the  passages  from  the  Fathers.  I  was  not 
trying  to  render  any  other  view  impossible,  but  highly  improlaUe, 
and  this  I  did  accomplish  ;  and  I  have  since  shown  by  other  evi- 
dence that  what  is  announced  as  highly  probable,  in  view  of  all 
the  facts  of  these  cases,  is  certainly  true. 

The  fact  is,  that,  through  my  whole  argument,  T  avowedly  re- 
ject Dr.  Carson's  demands  as  to  the  degree  of  proof  needed,  and 
claim  decidedly  and  earnestly  that  I  have  proved  the  sense  w^hich 
I  assign  to  the  word,  although  another  view  is  possible.  I  refuse 
to  be  cut  off  from  using  the  lower  grades  of  moral  evidence.  I 
refuse  to  give  up  the  aid  to  be  derived  from  a  sense  of  propriety, 
beauty,  harmony,  and  verisimilitude.  I  refuse  to  introduce  into 
the  world  of  rhetoric  and  taste,  the  iron  rules  of  rigid  demonstra- 
tion. I  insist  that,  in  the  interpretation  of  language,  the  mind 
shall  be  left  open  to  the  full  power  of  all  the  influences  that  con- 
spired to  form  that  language.  For  example,  in  the  exquisite  pas- 
sage quoted  from  Proclus,  to  translate  /Sa-Trrj^w  immerse,  to  a  sen- 
sitive  mind,  alive  to  the  beauties  of  style,  would  be  worse  than  ten 
thousand  discords  in  music.  I  refuse  to  be  haunted  by  the  ghost 
of  an  absurd  canon  of  evidence  through  all  the  regions  of  poetry 
and  eloquence,  and  compelled  to  reject  all  probable  evidence  of 
secondary  senses,  however  striking,  till  I  can  succeed  in  hunting 
up  one  case  of  the  impossibility  of  the  primary  sense.  Whether 
I  could  find  one  such  case  or  not,  I  did  insist,  and  still  do,  that 
the  laws  of  moral  and  cumulative  evidence  shall  have  their  right- 
ful sway,  and  that  language  shall  not  be  tortured,  wrested,  and 
tormented  for  party  purposes,  and  under  the  guise  of  zeal  for  the 


§  68.  DR.  carson's  reply  to  the   fathers.  227 

glory  of  God,  and  with  charges  of  childish  sophistry,  or  of  uni- 
tarian or  papal  reasoning,  or  even  of  blasphemy,  and  giving  the 
lie  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  merely  because  I  duly  regard  rational  pro- 
babilities in  deciding  the  sense  of  words.  As  to  the  passages  from 
Chrysostom,  Theophylact,  and  Gregory  Naz.,  in  which  I  assign 
to  (Ba'ffTK^ixos  the  sacrificial  sense  xa^^apjcTjxoV,  I  have  fully  vindi- 
cated that  sense  in  my  remarks  on  the  baptism  of  blood,  in  §§  25, 
26,  pp.  61-68,  and  in  the  present  article  ;  and  to  these  remarks  I 
refer  the  reader. 

Let  us  now  consider  what  Dr.  Carson,  with  his  usual  urbanity, 
calls  my  original  nonsense.  Concerning  this,  he  says,  "  He  gives 
us  eight  lines  of  philosophy.  I  will  give  a  premium  to  any  one, 
who  will  produce  me  a  greater  quantity  of  absurdity  in  the  same 
compass,  under  the  appearance  of  wisdom.  The  only  merit  this 
nonsense  can  claim,  is  that  it  is  original  nonsense."  With  all 
due  deference  to  Dr.  Carson's  award  of  the  palm  of  originality 
to  me,  I  am  obliged  to  resign  it  to  Basil,  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
Jerome,  and  others  of  the  Fathers ;  for  what  I  stated  as  philosophi- 
cally probable,  I  find  by  their  writings  that  they  had  seen  long 
before  me  as  a  matter  of  fact.  My  eight  lines  of  original  non- 
sense are  these  :  *'  In  a  case  where  analogical  senses  exist,  one 
external  and  material,  and  the  other  spiritual,  it  is  natural  that 
they  should  run  into  each  other,  and  terms  applied  to  one,  be 
applied  to  the  other.  Thus  if  [oairri^cjj  means  to  purify,  then 
there  is  natural  purification  and  spiritual  purification,  or  regene- 
ration, and  there  would  be  a  tendency  to  use  avayswaw  to  denote 
the  latter  idea,  and  also  to  transfer  it  to  the  external  rite.  And 
at  first  it  would  be  so  done  as  merely  to  be  the  name  of  the  rite, 
and  not  to  denote  its  actual  efficacy."*  Hear  now  Basil :  "  Since, 
then,  the  Lord  has  connected  both  baptisms,  namely,  that  from 
water  to  repentance,  and  that  from  the  Spirit  to  regeneration,  are 

*  I  retain  this  as  I  first  published  it.  In  this  edition  I  state  my  original 
meaning  more  fully  in  §  19,  to  obviate  the  misunderstandings  and  false 
criticisms  of  Dr.  Carann. 


228  DR.  carson's  reply  to  the  fathers.  §  68. 

there  not  three  significations  of  baptism,  purification  from  filth, 
regeneration  (ava^swvjtfi^)  by  the  Spirit,  and  trial,  i.  e.  purgation 
by  the  fire  of  judgment.  Here  now  the  senses  are  analogical. 
Purification  by  water  is  external  and  material,  purification  by  the 
Spirit  is  internal  and  spiritual,  that  is,  it  is  regeneration.  Hence 
also  /^acrrjcf/j-oj  assumes  that  sense,  i.  e.  regeneration  is  one  of  its 
meanings:  so  Basil  expressly  testifies.  Again,  this  name  regene- 
ration was  transferred  to  denote  the  external  rite,  and  yet  so 
transferred  as  to  be  merely  the  name  of  the  rite  and  not  to  denote 
its  actual  efficacy.  Of  this,  the  mere  fact  that  it  was  applied  to 
Christ,  is  proof  enough.  That  he  had  no  sin,  and  needed  no 
spiritual  purification,  they  all  with  one  voice  affirm,  and  yet  they 
fully  speak  of  him  as  regenerated.  What  sense  is  here  possible 
but  the  sense  baptize  ?  Clemens  Alexand.,  speaking  of  the 
baptism  of  Christ,  says,  rfTJiu-SPov  dvaysv^ridslg  o  Xpi(fr6g,  Christ, 
being  regenerated  to-day,  etc.,  and  in  the  context  interchanges 
that  mode  of  expression  with  ^wxTi^ofs^svog — so  Jerome  says  of 
Christ  that  he  was  born  of  a  virgin — and  born  again  (renatus), 
of  a  virgin — i.  e.  John  the  Baptist.  All  then  that  I  stated  is  true. 
jSairTKfixos,  i.  e.  purification,  has  analogical  senses,  one  external 
and  material,  the  other  internal  and  spiritual.  Spiritual  purifica- 
tion is  regeneration.  This  became  a  sense  of  the  word  baptism. 
It  was  also  applied  to  the  external  rite  to  denote  its  name,  but  not 
its  efficacy.  The  view  that  I  advocate  explains  all  this.  It  led 
me  to  expect  it ;  and  facts  are  as  I  expected  to  find  them.  Hence 
to  Basil  and  to  the  Fathers  I  must  resign  the  palm  of  originality. 
I  cannot,  however,  give  them  the  premium  for  more  nonsense 
than  mine.  Their  nonsense  and  mine  seem  in  quantity  exactly 
to  coincide.  Dr.  Carson's  a  priori  reasonings  against  my  views, 
are  therefore  merely  reasonings  against  notorious  matters  of  fact. 
This  is  as  I  expected.  His  principles  are  at  war  with  facts,  and 
to  what  else  can  they  lead  him  ?  If  then  his  reasoning  is  good, 
what  has  he  proved  ?  Simply  that  the  actual  facts  of  language, 
and  the  actual  operations  of  the  human  mind,  are  nonsense.  All 
this  may  be  ;   and  this  state  of  things  may  call  loudlv  for  reform. 


§  69.  RESULT.  229 

Let  not  Dr.  Carson  then  be  discouraged.  It  merely  opens  to  him 
a  new  field  of  reform.  Let  him  follow  his  high  vocation,  and 
having  reformed  philology,  commentary,  rhetoric,  and  logic,  let 
him  next  reform  the  human  mind  itself,  and  human  languages, 
the  offspring  of  that  mind.  Then  he  will  have  all  things  to  his 
liking.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  will  his  favorite  principles  have 
full  scope.  What  kind  of  languages  he  will  form  it  is  not  for  me 
to  say.  I  enter  not  a  sphere  so  high.  They  may  be  the  tongues 
of  angels  :  certainly  they  will  not  be  the  tongues  of  men.  As  for 
me,  I  am  willino;  to  take  facts  as  I  find  them,  even  at  the  hazard 
of  being  charged  with  nonsense,  for  so  doing.  I  leave  the  tongues 
of  angels  to  Dr.  Carson.  I  am  contented  to  study  the  tongues  of 
men. 

§  69.     Result. 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  then  is  this.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers,  according  to  Dr.  Carson,  is  absolute  and  de- 
cisive, for  they  must  have  known  the  apostolic  usage  of  the  word  ; 
to  say  otherwise  is  virtually  to  say  that  the  Scriptures  are  no  reve- 
lation. But  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  is  as  full  against  his 
positions,  and  in  favor  of  mine,  as  is  in  the  nature  of  things  pos- 
sible ;  and,  therefore,  the  question  is  decided  in  my  favor,  and 
that  not  by  the  opinions  of  modern  critics,  but  by  men  from  whose 
opinion  there  is  no  appeal. 

But  before  closing  the  argument,  I  desire  to  repeat  what  I  have 
often  said  before,  that  I  appeal  to  the  Fathers  simply  as  witnesses 
to  the  meaning  of  words.  Many  of  their  opinions  which  I  have 
stated,  as  for  example,  those  on  baptismal  regeneration,  holy 
water,  etc.,  are  clearly  false.  But  this  does  not  at  all  invalidate 
or  weaken  their  testimony  as  to  the  use  of  words,  or  hide  the 
great  fact,  which  blazes  through  their  pages  like  the  sun  in  mid 
heaven,  that  they  habitually  used  fSair-ri^c^  to  denote  purification 
of  every  kind.  So  that  with  the  proposition,  which  I  laid  down 
at  the  opening  of  this  discussion,  I  bring  it  to  a  close.  §  3,  pp. 
7-11. 


230  CONCLUSION.  §  "70. 

"  The  word  (Saitrlt^!^,  as  a  religious  term,  means  neither  dip  nor 
sprinkle,  immerse  nor  pour,  nor  any  other  external  action  in  ap- 
plying a  fluid  to  the  body,  or  the  body  to  a  fluid,  nor  any  action 
that  is  limited  to  one  mode  of  performance.  But  as  a  religious 
term,  it  means,  at  all  times,  to  purify  or  cleanse, — words  of  a 
meaning  so  general,  as  not  to  be  confined  to  any  mode  or  agent, 
or  means,  or  object,  whether  material  or  spiritual,  but  to  leave 
the  widest  scope  for  the  question  as  to  the  mode.  So  that  in  this 
usage  it  is  in  every  respect  a  perfect  synonyme  of  the  word  xa^ct- 

This  proposition  I  at  first  derived  solely  from  an  examination  of 
the  New  Testament  usage,  and  I  here  repeat  it  as  a  true  view  of 
the  import  of  the  language  of  that  supreme  law  of  the  Christian 
church.  And  I  value  the  appeal  to  the  Fathers  simply  as  helping 
us,  by  their  testimony  to  the  usus  loquendi,  to  reach  a  true  inter- 
pretation of  the  word  of  God.  Such  then,  as  I  have  just  stated, 
is  the  religious  usage  of  the  New  Testament,  and  if  so,  all  at- 
tempts to  enforce  on  the  church  obedience  to  a  command  to  im- 
merse, is  a  manifest  invasion  of  the  great  principle  of  religious 
liberty.     It  is  teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of 

MEN. 


§  70.     Conclusion. 

With  four  remarks  I  will  close. 

1.  The  present  position  of  the  Baptist  denomination  towards 
the  rest  of  their  fellow-Christians  on  earth,  is  exceedingly  dis- 
honorable to  God,  injurious  to  themselves,  and  injurious  to  the 
highest  interests  of  the  whole  Christian  community. 

2.  There  is  no  higher  duty  at  this  time  resting  on  the  church 
than  that  of  bringing  this  long  protracted  and  exceedingly  in- 
jurious controversy  to  a  close. 

3.  It  can  be  brought  to  a  close. 

4.  The  responsibility  of  terminating  it  rests  mainly,  if  not  en- 
tirely, on  the  learned  scholars  and  leading  minds  of  the  Christian 
world. 


§  70.  CONCLUSION.  231 

The  truth  of  these  propositions  must  be  so  obvious  to  every 
thinking  mind,  that  I  might  almost  leave  them  without  remark. 
But  to  guard  against  all  misunderstanding,  I  would  remark,  by- 
way of  more  full  illustration  : 

1.  That  to  have  real  Christians,  who  agree  in  all  fundamen- 
tals, divided  in  communion  and  action  by  a  mere  question  of  form, 
is,  and  must  be,  at  all  times,  dishonorable  and  painful  to  God — 
for  in  practice  it  treats  non-essentials  as  more  important  than  es- 
sentials, and  arrays  holy  men  against  holy  men,  to  weaken  each 
other's  power,  and  injure  each  other's  character  and  usefulness. 
And  what  more  could  even  the  devil  himself  desire  ? 

It  is  injurious  to  the  Baptists,  for  it  has  injured  them.  Among 
them  are  eminently  pious  men,  but  a  bad  system  has  ensnared 
and  betrayed  them.  How  else  can  we  account  for  it  that  they 
should  have  dared  solemnly  and  formally  to  arrogate  to  them- 
selves that  they  are  divinely  and  peculiarly  set  for  the  defence 
of  THE  GOSPEL,  and  that  the  heathen  world  must  look  to  them  alone 
for  an  unveiled  view  of  the  glories  of  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
Has  it  then  come  to  this  ?  Take  away  immersion,  and  is  the 
gospel  shorn  of  all  its  glories  ?  Yea,  is  the  gospel  itself  anni- 
hilated ?  Is  immersion  the  gospel  ?  What  more  can  the  most 
bigoted  defender  of  baptismal  regeneration  and  sacramen- 
tal sanctification  say  than  all  this  ?  But  do  our  pious  Bap- 
tist brethren  mean  all  this  ?  No  !  a  thousand  times,  no.  They 
know  and  feel,  as  well  as  we,  that  immersion  is  not  the  gospel  ? 
These  facts  only  show,  what  all  experience  has  shown,  the  dan= 
ger  of  holding  a  system  which  makes  a  mere  form  of  so  much 
moment  in  practice,  as  to  outweigh  holine^  of  heart  and  of  life. 
In  spite  of  all  reasoning  and  professions  to  the  contrary,  it  will, 
as  a  general  fact,  concentrate  on  itself  a  disproportioned,  an  un- 
healthy interest,  narrow  the  range  of  Christian  feeling,  chill  it 
and^  check  its  expansion,  and  derange  and  distort  the  intellectual 
perceptions  of  the  mind.  Men  of  uncommon  native  nobleness  of 
character,  as  Robert  Hall,  or  men  of  great  piety,  may  hold  these 
tendencies   of  the  system  in   check.     But  multitudes   will  not. 


232  CONCLUSION.  §  70. 

Taught  to  regard  themselves  as  distinguished  from  the  rest  of  the 
Christian  world  by  a  form,  the  spirit  of  formalism  will  have 
scope.  The  pernicious  idea  of  divine  favoritism,  on  the  ground 
of  forms,  will  grow  up,  and  this  will  breed  arrogance,  censorious- 
ness,  exclusion,  and  the  spirit  of  proselyting  in  its  highest  degree. 
Nor  do  I  speak  of  tendencies  merely  ;  these  tendencies  are  em- 
bodied in  public  official  results.  How  else  can  we  account  for  it 
that  even  evangelical  Baptists,  not  Campbellites  or  Mormons,  but 
even  evangelical  Baptists,  have  dared  to  arrogate  to  themselves  a 
peculiar  divine  appointment  to  defend  and  promulgate  the  gospel 
of  Christ,  and  have  dared  to  charge  two  leading  Christian  Bible 
Societies,  the  American  and  British  and  Foreign,  as  "  virtually 
COMBINING  TO  OBSCURE  a  part,  at  least,  of  divine  revelation,"  and  to 
say,  that  in  the  translation  of  other  denominations,  "  the  I'eal 
meaning  of  the  words  is  purposely  kept  out  of  sight  ?"  Is  it  no 
injury  to  pious  men  to  be  so  ensnared  and  deluded  by  a  false  sys- 
tem, as  to  say  and  do  such  things  as  these  ?  These  are  not  the 
promptings  of  their  Christian  hearts,  for  that  they  have  Christian 
hearts  I  will  not  doubt.  No  ;  it  is  the  poison,  the  delusion  of  a 
false  system  that  has  done  this. 

No  less  is  the  Baptist  system  injurious  to  the  highest  interests 
of  the  whole  Christian  community.  The  implications  of  the 
Baptist  system,  and  the  proselyting  spirit  generated  by  it,  and 
their  charges  on  the  rest  of  the  Christian  community,  tend  directly 
to  irritate  and  alienate,  to  cherish  the  spirit  of  hostility,  to  nourish 
unholy  controversy,  to  corrupt  the  love  of  truth  by  the  desire  of 
victory,  and  to  breed  an  unchristian  contempt  towards  our  Bap- 
tist brethren,  as  exclusive,  narrow-minded,  and  contracted.  All 
this  is  wrong,  and  it  is  an  infinite  evil.  Over  it  all  true  Chris- 
tians ought  to  mourn  ;  against  it  they  ought  to  strive  and  pray. 
But  the  Baptist  system  tends  directly  to  produce  it.  For  it  is 
based  on  a  mere  external  act,  which  has  in  itself  no  importance, 
except  what  is  supposed  to  be  created  by  a  positive  command.  It 
is  not  like  the  law  of  God,  and  holiness,  founded  in  the  nature  of 
things  ;   and  yet  it  cuts  with  the   sharp  edge   of  exclusion,   and 


§  70.  CONCLUSION.  233 

with  charges  of  rebellion  against  God,  as  keenly  as  if  it  were  as 
important  as  the  being  of  God  himself.  Now,  though  to  yield  to 
temptation  is  wrong,  and  Christian  endurance  ought  to  rise  supe- 
rior to  every  trial,  yet  it  is,  and  ever  will  be,  an  infinite  calamity 
to  the  church,  to  be  harassed  and  tried  by  a  system  so  exquisitely 
adapted,  both  in  theory  and  practice,  to  irritate  and  provoke  ;  and 
the  cessation  of  an  influence  so  malignant,  vvould  be  to  the  church 
almost  like  life  from  the  dead*.     Of  course, 

2.  There  is  no  higher  duty  resting  on  the  church,  at  this  time, 
than  that  of  bringing  this  long  protracted  and  exceedingly  in- 
jurious controversy  to  a  close.  The  last  great  Papal  v/ar  is 
coming  on  ;  our  own  civil  and  religious  liberties  are  in  danger  ; 
and  is  this  a  time  still  more  to  embitter  the  divisions  of  real 
Christians  at  home,  and  to  sow  the  seeds  of  future  discord,  by 
translations  unintentionally,  but  really  erroneous,  in  all  parts  of 
the  heathen  world  '?  The  power  of  Satan's  harlot  church  lies  in 
organic  unity  on  false  and  worldly  principles.  But  still,  unity 
gives  power,  and  till  the  true  church  discovers  the  true  law  of 
Christian  unity,  and  unites,  the  power  of  Satan  cannot  be,  and  will 
not  be  overcome.  He  knows  the  full  worth  of  the  maxim,  divide 
and  conquer.  The  worth  of  the  maxim,  unite  and  conquer,  the 
church  has  yet  to  learn  ;  and  to  learn  it,  and  reduce  it  to  practice, 
is  the  great  work  and  duty  of  the  present  age. 

3.  This  controversy  can  be  brought  to  a  close.  The  real  issue 
is  one  and  simple.  False  issues  can  be  avoided.  False  princi- 
ples rejected — and  the  real  issue  decided ;  for  it  all  depends  upon 
a  simple  question  in  philology,  and,  with  regard  to  that  question, 
there  is  abundant  proof. 

The  settlement  of  this  question  has  been  greatly  hindered  by 
attempts  to  prove  that  Sairri^G)  means  to  sprinkle  or  pour.  I 
have  never  seen  the  least  evidence  that  it  has  either  of  these 
meanings,  and  to  attempt  to  defend  the  cause  of  sprinkling  or 
pouring,  on  such  grounds,  is,  in  my  judgment,  to  make  a  false 
issue,  and  in  effect  to  betray  the  cause  ;  and  yet  it  has  been  often 


234  coxXCLUsioN.  §  70. 

done,  and  is  still  done.     I  shall  not   wonder  if  Baptists  remain 
for  ever  unconvinced  by  such  arguments  as  these. 

The  settlement  of  this  question  is  also  greatly  hindered  by  ad- 
mitting that  (Satri^c)  in  the  command,  means  to  immerse,  and  yet 
claiming  the  right,  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  to  practise 
sprinkling,  because,  in  our  judgment,  it  retains  the  essence  of  the 
command.  Especially,  if  it  is  at  the  same  time  conceded  that 
Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  relate  to  the  external  rite,  and  that 
the  early  church  understood  (Banri^u)  as  meaning  immerse,  and 
practised  immersion  for  that  reason.  When  all  this  is  conceded, 
the  whole  question  is  conceded.  It  is  perfect  logical  demonstra- 
tion in  favor  of  immersion.  But  I  have  abundantly  shown  that 
none  of  these  things  are  so.  Hence,  to  concede  them,  is  to  give 
up  the  whole  question,  and  then  on  the  grounds  of  expediency,  to 
claim  the  right  to  alter  a  command  of  God.  This  is  placing  the 
defence  of  the  right  to  sprinkle  on  a  false  principle,  for  no  such 
right  as  is  claimed  exists.  Nor  shall  I  wonder  if  the  Baptists  re- 
main for  ever  unconvinced  by  such  reasoning  as  this. 

The  real  and  only  issue  is  this.-  Is  the  command  an  open  com- 
mand ?  Is  it  a  command  to  purify,  or  a  command  to  perform  an 
external  specific  act  ?  One  or  the  other  it  is.  Which  ?  If  the 
latter,  then  let  us  all  obey.  If  a  command  to  purify,  then  let  us 
all  cease  to  dispute  about  forms,  and  obey  in  that  mode  which 
seems  to  us  most  significant,  decorous,  and  solemn. 

This  brings  the  v.hole  question  to  an  issue,  definite  and  simple, 
and  as  it  regards  every  point  upon  which  the  issue  depends,  there 
is  abundant  proof,  and  that  of  a  kind  which  is  in  its  nature  abso- 
lute and  decisive. 

4.  The  responsibility  of  terminating  this  discussion  rests  main- 
ly, if  not  entirely,  with  the  learned  scholars  and  leading  minds  of 
the  Christian  world. 

It  depends  upon  a  question  in  philology.  On  such  questions 
original  investigation  is,  and  must  be,  limited  to  a  few.  It  extends 
over  a  wide  field,  and  calls  for  nice  discrimination,  and  accurate 
principles  of  philology.     Hence,  the  mass  of  the  Christian   com- 


§  70.  CONCLUSION.  235 

munity  are  peculiarly  in  the  power  of  their  leaders — and  their 
leaders  are  exposed  to  peculiar  temptations.  By  bold  and  united 
assertions,  and  by  overlooking  or  suppressing  evidence,  they  can 
keep  their  parties  together,  and  inspire  them  with  zeal  even 
against  the  truth. 

flence,  on  no  class  of  men  do  such  responsibilities  rest  as  on 
the  learned  leaders  in  this  cause,  to  make  themselves  fully  ac- 
quainted with  the  evidence  on  which  a  decision  depends,  to  avoid 
all  false  issues,  to  reject  all  unsound  principles,  and  sincerely  and 
honestly,  as  in  the  sight  of  God,  to  meet  the  main  question,  avoid- 
ing all  personalities,  and  all  unchristian  excitement,  and  suppress- 
ing and  concealing  no  part  of  the  truth.  If  they  will  do  this, 
and  look  to  God  for  the  illumination  and  guidance  of  the  Spirit, 
then  he  will  cause  the  watchmen  to  see  eye  to  eye,  to  lift  up  the 
voice  together,  and  together  to  sing.  If  not,  let  them  fear  lest 
they  become  not  merely  blind  leadersof  the  blind,  but  treacherous 
guides  of  confiding,  but  dependent  minds.  All  error  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  subject  is  not  on  one  side.  There  have  been  false 
defences  of  the  truth,  which  need  as  really  to  be  abandoned,  as 
positive  error.  And  a  supreme  regard  to  the  glory  of  God  should 
lead  each  lo  inquire,  not  how  can  I  prove  that  all  my  past  posi- 
tions have  been  true,  but  how  can  I  discover  all  errors  which  I 
have  incautiously  embraced,  and  retain  the  truth  alone  ?  So  soon 
as  leading  minds  agree  on  this  point,  the  mind  of  the  community 
will  be  at  rest,  and  not  till  then. 

Much  evil  has  been  done  by  speaking  of  this  discussion  as  a 
mere  dispute  about  forms,  and  as  unworthy  of  the  attention  of  an 
expanded  and  liberal  mind.  It  relates,  indeed,  to  a  form,  but,  as 
I  have  shown,  it  affects  immense  spiritual  interests,  and  it  is  in  its 
essential  nature  a  question  in  philology — to  be  decided  just  as  all 
other  philological  questions  are — and  the  real  difficulty  has  been, 
not  that  it  has  been  discussed  too  much,  but  that  the  discussion 
has  not  been  sufficiently  radical  and  extensive,  and  that  much 
very  important  evidence  has  been  sparingly  used,  if  used  at  all. 
Let  this  state  of  things  cease,  and  the  sanctified  intellectual  ener- 


236  CONCLUSION.  §  "70. 

gies  of  the  Christian  community  be  brought  to  bear  on  this  sub- 
ject with  humble  prayer  for  divine  guidance,  and  the  clouds  of 
error  will  pass  away. 

The  present  state  of  things  ought  not  to  continue,  nay,  it  can- 
not. The  cause  of  God  can  never  triumph  whilst  his  church  is 
so  painfully  divided,  and  her  energies  so  paralysed,  and  so  long 
as  such  errorists  as  the  Campbellites  and  the  Mormons  are 
shielded,  in  their  most  pernicious  formalism,  on  a  point  so  vital  to 
them  as  Baptism,  by  the  influence  of  the  Evangelical  Baptists. 

Nor  does  it  seem  to  me  possible  that  all  leading  minds,  through 
power  of  conviction,  should  ever  accede  to  the  Baptist  position  in 
all  its  rigor  and  extent,  giving  to  the  word  but  one  sense,  and  that 
to  immerse  ;  and  making  this  an  iron  rule  for  translation  and 
practice-  It  is  a  system  more  rigid  than  that  of  the  Fathers, 
even  in  the  ages  of  the  highest  formalism.  So  rigid  a  system 
never  did  prevail  in  the  church,  nor  can  I  believe  that  it  ever  will. 
There  are  not  the  elements  of  logical  proof  in  existence.  It  dis- 
agrees with  all  of  our  ideas  of  fitness  ;  there  is  no  reason  to  wish 
it  true,  and  its  fundamental  position  can  be  logically  destroyed. 

The  position  defended  by  me,  takes  nothing  from  any  one  but 
the  right  to  think  others  wrong,  and  to  censure  and  exclude  them, 
and  in  itself  considered,  there  is  everything  to  recommend  it. 
For 

1.  It  is  more  adapted  to  the  varying  conditions  of  men,  and  to 
all  changes  of  climate,  times,  seasons,  and  health. 

2.  It  is  more  accordant  with  the  liberal  and  enlarged  spirit  of 
.Christianity,  as  a  religion  of  freedom,  designed  for  all   countries 

and  all  times. 

3.  It  better  agrees  with  our  ideas  of  what  is  reasonable  and 
fit. 

4.  It  offers  no  temptations  to  formalism,  nor  does  it  tend  to  fos- 
ter arrogance  and  exclusion. 

5.  It  is  perfectly  adequate  to  harmonize  the  church. 

6.  It  is  susceptible  of  any  necessary  degree  of  proof. 

I  have,  by  no  means,  exhausted  the  proof  that  exists,  nor  even 


§  70.  CONCLUSION.  237 

what  I  have  on  hand.  To  much  I  have  not  had  time  even  to  al- 
lude. But  what  I  have  produced  is  sufficient,  I  trust,  by  the 
blessing  of  God,  to  secure  the  end  that  I  proposed,  "  to  furnish 
some  small  share  of  the  materials  which  God  may  use  in  pro- 
ducing the  unity  of  his  own  church."  But  for  faith  in  God,  I 
never  should  have  dared  to  undertake  this  work.  But  for  his  sus- 
taining grace  I  could  not  have  brought  it  thus  far.  Almost  ex- 
hausted by  efforts  to  sustain  the  college  over  which  I  preside,  in  a 
time  of  unparalleled  pecuniary  embarrassment,  without  an  ade- 
quate library  at  the  college,  compelled  to  visit  distant  libraries, 
some  more  than  a  thousand  miles  distant,  and  to  make  researches 
at  long  intervals,  loaded  with  pecuniary  cares  and  anxieties,  com- 
pelled  often  to  write  on  journeys,  in  steamboats,  and  canal-boats, 
and  taverns,  no  one  can  be  more  deeply  sensible  than  I  am  of  the 
necessary  imperfections  of  my  performance.  Yet  I  have  looked 
to  my  God  to  save  me  from  hurtful  error,  and  to  guide  me  into 
the  truth,  and  it  is  my  humble  persuasion  that  he  has  heard  my 
prayer.  To  him,  in  conclusion,  I  commend  all  that  I  have  writ- 
ten, imploring  him  to  pardon  all  its  imperfections,  to  correct  all  its 
errors,  and  to  use  all  its  truth  to  the  glory  of  his  own  great  and 
holy  name. 


PART    IV. 

NOTICE      OF      DR.      CARSOn's     SECOND      REPLY. 

CHAPTER     I  . 

§  71.     State  of  the  Controversy. 

Those  who  have  read  what  precedes,  will  remember  that  Dr. 
Carson  spoke  of  my  proposal  to  derive  evidence  from  the  Fathers, 
that  (SaifTi^o^  means  to  purify,  as  follows : 

"  Proof  from  the  Fathers,  that  /3a<7rr(^w  signifies  to  purify  ! 
As  well  might  lie  profess  to  find  in  them  proof  for  the  existence 
of  railroads  and  steam  coaches.  There  is  no  such  proof;  there 
is  not  an  instance  in  all  the  Fathers  in  which  the  word  or  any  of 
its  derivatives  are  so  used.  Without  exception,  they  use  the 
word  always  for  immersion."  He  says  this  as  a  scholar,  pro- 
fessing to  be  "  acquainted  with  the  Fathers." 

Of  the  value  of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  he  spoke  as 
follows : 

"  They  knew  the  meaning  of  the  language  which  they  spoke." 
p.  472.  "  The  sense  in  which  it  (iSa-TrTi^w)  was  used  by  the 
apostles  must  have  been  known  most  assuredly  to  all  that  either 
heard  them  or  read  their  writings.  To  suppose  that  persons  who 
spoke  the  Greek  language  might  understand  their  words  in  a 
sense  different  from  that  in  which  they  used  them  would  be  to 
charge  the  Scripture  as  not  being  a  revelation."  p.  473. 

Here  then,  in  this  long  debated  controversy,  was  an  issue 
finally  presented  which  involved  a  final,  absolute,  and  irrevocable 
decision  of  the  question. 

The  Fathers  were  infallible  witnesses.     They   have  testified 


§  71,  STATE    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY.  239 

explicitly,  and  abundantly.  Dr.  Carson  says  that  always,  without 
exception,  they  testify  for  immersion.  I  assert  with  equal  con- 
fidence that  they  testify  in  favor  of  the  sense  purification. 

From  this  issue  I  do  not  intend  to  be  turned  aside  by  Dr. 
Carson's  innumerable  and  irrelevant  personal  attacks.  It  is  of 
no  great  consequence  to  the  church,  or  to  the  world,  whether  1 
have  or  have  "  not  a  head  for  the  philosophy  of  language,"  on 
which  grave  point  Dr.  Carson  gives  us  his  opinion — p.  436.  At 
least,  if  a  Greek  Father  expressly  defines  (Sairri^cjj  as  meaning  to 
purify,  I  can  understand  it,  and  quote  it  for  the  benefit  of 
Dr.  Carson  and  his  disciples — and  it  is  incumbent  on  them  to 
show  that  the  Father  in  question  does  not  so  define  /Da-TrTi'^w,  or 
to  give  up  the  controversy. 

No  question  can  be  brought  to  an  issue  more  direct,  or  more 
easily  decided.  The  whole  subject  lies  in  a  nut-shell.  From 
this  issue  I  do  not  mean  to  turn  aside  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  the 
left. 

What  then  are  the  facts  in  the  case  ?  They  are  these :  I 
brought  forward,  not  from  one,  but  from  many  Fathers,  not 
merely  one,  but  multitudinous  testimonies,  as  explicit,  and  as 
direct  as  possible,  that  fSa'n'Ti^cj  means  to  purify. 

I  will  mention  a  few  of  the  items. 

1.  I  quoted  from  Basil  an  express  and  formal  definition  of  the 
word  (SccifrKfixa,  as  meaning  purification.  In  this  definition  he 
was  professedly  explaining  the  meaning  of  the  word  used  by 
John  in  the  days  of  Christ,  and  with  reference  to  the  institution 
of  baptism.  Evidence  more  unequivocal  of  the  correctness  of  my 
position  cannot  be  conceived.     See  §  55. 

2.  I  had  asserted  that  (Sa'n-ri^^u  was  also  used  in  the  sense  of 
xa^a^i^oj  to  denote  sacrificial  purification  or  the  remission  of  sins. 
This  assertion  Dr.  Carson  ridiculed.  In  proof  of  its  truth  I 
quoted  a  comment  of  Athanasius  on  the  words  of  John,  in  which 
he  afiirms  that  his  words,  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  mean  xa^a^i?»  ujxaj,  he  shall  purify  you,  that  is,  as  he  ex- 
plains it,  forgive  your  sins.      §  55. 


240  STATE    OF   THE    CONTROVERSY.  §  71. 

3.  I  quoted  from  the  Lexicon  of  Zonaras  written  in  Greek,  his 
native  tongue,  a  definition  of  /rJarTJcTjaa  as  meaning  the  remission 
of  sins  by  water  and  the  Spirit — which  perfectly  coincides  with 
Athanasius.  The  same  lexicon  also  gives  to  (BaifTicfixa  the  other 
sense  of  xa^apj<^w,  i.  e.  moral  purification.      §  55. 

4.  I  quoted  from  Proclus  a  passage  variously  and  beautifully 
illustrating  and  confirming  the  same  sense  ;  in  this  John  is  re- 
presented as  using  f3aitri<^(,)  in  the  sense  to  purify,  to  acquit,  in 
stating  to  Christ  the  reasons  of  his  reluctance  to  baptize  him. 
§  54.  How  can  I,  a  sinner,  says  he,  purify,  i.  e.  absolve  my 
judge  ? 

5.  I  quoted  a  passage  from  Ambrose  on  Jewish  and  heathen 
baptisms,  in  which,  because  their  washings  do  not  remit  sins,  he 
denies  to  them  the  name  of  baptisms,  and  says  that  they  are 
merely  lavacra.  Of  course  he  must  use  the  word  in  the  same 
sense  as  Athanasius,  Zonaras,  and  Proclus.     §  53. 

6.  I  quoted  from  Ambrose  a  passage  in  which  he  calls  sprink- 
ling a  baptism,  §  61.  Also  another  passage  from  the  same  Father, 
in  which  he  speaks  of  a  person  sprinkled  with  blood  as  baptized 
according  to  the  law,  §  53.  Here  the  sense  purified  is  plainly 
demanded. 

7.  I  quoted  a  passage  from  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  in  which  he 
speaks  of  spriiikling  the  unclean  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  as  a 
baptism — thus  showing  how  he  understood  Siacpo^oi  (SairrKf^oi,  in 
Heb.  ix.  10,  and  (SaifTi^oixsvog  a-rro  vsx^ov  in  Sirach  xxxiv.  25. 

8.  I  quoted  from  Tertullian  a  passage  in  which  he  speaks  of  the 
washings  and  sprinklings  of  the  heathen  as  the  devil's  baptism, 
§53. 

9.  I  quoted  a  passage  from  Justin  Martyr,  in  which  he  says, 
"be  baptized,  as  to  your  soul,  from  anger,  from  covetousness, 
from  envy,  from  hatred,  and  lo  !  your  body  is  pure."  Here  the 
preposition  a-rro  demands  the  sense  purify — no  less  than  the  anti- 
thesis, lo,  your  body  is  pure  (xa<3a^6v). 

10.  I  argued  from  the  use  of  the  preposition  ^la  after  ^airri^u, 
just  as  it  is  used  after  xa^a^/Jw.     The  sense  immerse  requires  sig 


§71.  STATE    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY.  241 

or  5v.  We  say  to  purify  hy  or  with  water — to  immerse  or  dip 
into  water.  Notliing  can  more  clearly  show  that  /SaTTTj^w  has 
the  sense  of  xa^a^/^w,  than  its  thus  taking  after  it  the  preposition 
5<a,  and  in  Latin  per,  §  56,  and  §  64. 

11.  1  quoted  Basil,  Eusebius  of  Coesarea,  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
and  others,  to  prove  that  the  Fathers  understood  the  verbs  denoting 
to  purify  in  Is.  iv.  4,  and  Mai.  iii.  1-3,  in  predictions  of  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah,  as  equivalent  in  sense  to  (Sa-uirll^u  in  the 
New  Testament,  as  used  by  Christ  and  John.  No  evidence  can 
exceed  this  in  strength. 

12.  Dr.  Carson  denied  and  ridiculed  my  statement  that  in  Jn. 
iii.  25,  a  question  concerning  purification  was  equivalent  to  a 
question  concerning  baptisixk  Against  him  I  appealed  to  Chry- 
sostom,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Theophylact. 
and  quoted  from  Theophylact,  an  express  recognition  oi  ^aitTid^oi 
as  an  equivalent  of  xa^a^jtffxoff. 

13.  I  quoted  the  author  of  the  opus  imperfectum  on  Matthew, 
ascribed  to  Chrysostom — and  showed  that  he  calls  purification  by 
the  word  of  Christ  baptism  by  the  word  of  Christ,  referring  to 
Christ's  assertion.  Now  ye  are  clean  xa&a^oi  through  the  word  that 
I  have  spoken  unto  you  ;  also  that  he  calls  purification  by  trials, 
baptism  by  trials. 

14.  I  quoted  Theophylact,  as  thus  expressing  the  idea  that 
John  was  imrijied  by  putting  his  hand  on  the  head  of  Christ  : 
"John  was  baptized  by  putting  his  hand  on  the  head  of  Christ." 

15.  I  quoted  Theophylact  to  prove  that  in  Luke  xi.  38,  the'puri- 
fication  expected  of  Christ  was  a  washing  of  the  hands,  and  that 
sfBa.'n'r'Ki&ri  was  used  in  the  sense  of  purify.  I  quoted  from  the 
Apostolic  Constitutions  a  proof  that  the  same  word  as  applied  to 
couches,  cups,  &c.,  in  Mark  7,  means  to  purify. 

I  mention  these  cases  not  as  at  all  exhausting  the  argument, 
but  as  specimens  to  illustrate  the  nature,  the  variety,  and  the 
power  of  the  proofs  adduced  by  me. 

They  are  powerful  not  only  in  themselves,  but,  as  a  cumulative 
argument,  of  vast  force.     I  have  quoted  not  far  from  one  hundred 

11 


242  STATE    OF    THE    COI^TKOVERSY.  §71. 

passages  from  the  Fathers  to  sustain  my  views — and  they  are 
from  the  Fathers  of  all  ages — and  they  combine  in  one  con- 
sistent  and  harmonious  argument,  and  thus  sustain  each  other 
with  augmented  power.  It  became  Dr.  Carson,  of  course,  to 
meet  and  to  answer^this  testimony,  or  else  honestly  and  honorably 
to  abandon  his  grounds. 

What  then  has  he  done  ?  He  has  written  a  nominal  reply  of 
nine  pages  and  a  half,  in  which,  whatever  else  he  has  done,  he  has 
not  either  answered  or  professed  to  answer,  these  quotations  from 
the  Fathers,  nor  indeed  the  great  mass  of  my  quotations  from 
them.  That  is  to  say,  he  has  not  stated  either  the  quotations,  or 
their  import,  and  then  tried  to  show  that  they  do  not  prove  what  I 
allege.  Not  only  has  he  not  done  this,  but  what  is  more,  he  has 
not  even  attempted  to  do  it.  Just  at  this  auspicious  moment,  he 
makes  the  happy  discovery  that,  "  To  prove  that  the  Fathers 
understood  the  word  (^airri^oj)  as  immersion  in  reference  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  at  any  length,  would  be  totally  unsuitable 
to  his  present  work."     p.  488. 

That  is  to  say,  although  the  great  end  of  his  work  is  to  prove 
that  ^aTTTj^w,  as  used  in  the  ordinance  by  Christ,  means  to  im- 
merse, and  although  he  asserts  that  the  Fathers  do  infallibly 
prove  it,  yet  it  is  totally  unsuitable  to  the  great  end  of  his  work, 
to  prove  at  any  length  this  assertion,  although  upon  it  his  whole 
cause  rests. 

Of  what  avail  can  it  be  now,  for  Dr.  Carson  to  resort  to  offen- 
sive  personal  attacks  upon  my  competency  as  a  scholar,  in  the 
midst  of  such  virtual  and  decisive  confessions  of  entire  defeat  ? 
Where  was  it  ever  heard  of  before,  that  a  controversialist  thought 
it  totally  unsuitable  to  prove  his  main  position,  at  any  length,  by 
the  strongest  testimony  conceivable,  which  lay  before  him  in 
abundance,  and  devoted  the  greater  part  of  a  whole  volume  to 
testimony  of  little  or  no  weight  ?  If  Dr.  Carson  had  omitted  the 
greater  part  of  his  prolix  volume,  as  finally  published  by  him,  and 
fairly  met  and  answered  my  quotations  from  the  Fathers,  and 
proved  at  groat  length  that  they  testify  as  he  asserts,  he  would 


§  72.  REAL    PHILOSOPHY    OF    DR.    CARSON's    REPLY.  243 

have  done  something  very  much  to  his  purpose.  As  it  is,  he  has 
virtually  confessed  that  it  is  utterly  beyond  his  power  to  do  any 
such  thing.  This  is  very  much  to  my  purpose,  but  very  little 
to  his. 

As  a  fair  answer  then,  to  my  argument,  Dr.  Carson's  last  reply 
is  unworthy  of  notice.  It  needs  none.  It  is  a  mere  confession  of 
defeat. 

§  72.     Real  Philosophy  of  Dr.   Carson'' s  Reply. 

Yet  for  certain  purposes,  it  has  its  merits.  There  is  in  Eng- 
land and  Ireland  a  large  circle  over  whom  Dr.  Carson  exerts 
immense  influence,  and  who  have  never  read  my  argument,  and 
are  never  likely  to  read  it.  He  is  also  eulogised  in  some  of  the 
British  Reviews  as  well  known  in  Scotland,  England,  and 
America,  as  "  a  first  rate  scholar,  a  sound  philosopher,  an  ir- 
resistible  reasoner,  and  a  profound  theologian,  and  with  the 
strictest  propriety  designated  as  one  of  the  first  Biblical  critics  of 
the  nineteenth  century."  At  the  end  of  the  American  edition  of 
his  work  on  Baptism,  published  by  the  American  Baptist  Publica- 
tion Society,  is  quite  a  collection  of  such  eulogies,  by  writers  of 
different  denominations,  in  which  he  is  spoken  of  as  in  advance 
of  his  age  in  the  philosophy  of  language,  impartial,  candid, 
honest,  habituated  to  deep  and  searching  thought,  and  with  re- 
spect to  metaphysical  acuteness,  the  Jonathan  Edwards  of  the 
nineteenth  century. 

In  such  circumstances,  and  with  such  a  reputation,  it  would  be 
easy  for  Dr.  Carson  entirely  to  destroy  the  influence  of  my  argu- 
ment on  a  large  class  of  minds,  and  that  without  assuming  the 
responsibility  of  answering  it.  This  he  could  do  by  attacks  on 
my  capacity  as  a  scholar,  and  bold  and  contemptuous  assertions, 
without  a  particle  of  proof.  And  although  nine  pages  would 
hardly  furnish  room  even  to  begin  to  answer  my  argument  in  a 
manly  and  scholar-like  way,  still  they  would  furnish  abundant 
room  for  all  the  unproved  assertions  of  which  Dr.  Carson  or  any 
one  else  happened  to  be  in  need. 


244  AMERICAN    BAPTIST    PUBLICATION    SOCIETY.  §  73. 

Moreover,  the  very  brevity  of  the  reply,  taken  in  connexion  with 
its  tone  of  supercilious  contempt,  would  in  many  minds,  marvel- 
lously augment  the  conviction  that  my  argument  was  a  very  light 
affair,  and  scarcely  deserved  notice.  So  feeble  would  they  regard 
it  that  a  blow  or  two  of  Dr.  Carson's  club  would  easily  finish  it. 
Viewed,  then,  as  a  mere  controversial  manoeuvre,  and  without 
any  regard  to  a  candid  inquiry  after  the  truth.  Dr.  Carson's 
reply  has  decided  merits.  In  this  view  I  do  not  at  all  despise  it. 
It  was  obviously  written  for  effect,  and  has  exerted,  and  will,  no 
doubt,  continue  to  exert  a  great  partisan  influence  through  the 
whole  Baptist  denomination — most  of  whom  will  read  Dr.  Carson, 
and  never  see  my  argument. 

§  73.     American  Baptist  Publication  Society. 

This  effect  may  be  anticipated  with  the  more  confidence  from 
the  fact  that  so  respectable  a  religious  body  as  the  American 
Baptist  Publication  Society,  have  endorsed  and  republished  his 
work,  with  the  highest  eulogies  of  it,  and  of  its  author. 

His  work,  they  tell  us,  is  "  not  a  local  or  temporary  production, 
but  one  calculated  for  any  latitude,  and  destined  to  live  through- 
out all  time,"  p.  xlvi.  Again  they  say,  p.  xliii.,  "His  mission 
is  accomplished.  His  literary  career  has  now  terminated ;  but 
not  before  his  great  task  was  done.  Death  could  not  touch  him, 
until  he  had  put  the  finishing  hand  to  this  masterly  production, 
in  which  his  name  and  his  memory  shall  live  through  all  future 
time.  He  who,  like  Dr.  Carson,  has  vindicated  and  rendered 
prominent  an  ordinance  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  disentangling  it  from 
the  web  of  human  sophistry  and  perversion,  has  done  better  for 
the  world  than  if  he  had  founded  a  kingdom,  and  has  reared  for 
himself  a  monument  more  lasting  than  pillars  of  marble." 

These  eulogists  seem  to  be  nearly  as  well  satisfied  with  Dr. 
Carson's  spirit,  as  with  his  logic.  Many,  they  inform  us,  have 
formed  erroneous  conceptions  of  his  whole  character,  from  the 
apparent  harshness  of  his  criticisms.     They  assure  us  that  such 


§  73.  AMERICAN    BAPTIST    PUBLICATION    SOCIETY.  245 

mistake  the  true  origin  of  what  may  be  called  the  Attic  salt  in 
writing.  It  proceeds,  they  inform  us,  from  good  temper,  self- 
control,  and  coolness.  "  Anger  and  wrath  evaporate  in  abuse. 
But  no  one  will  find  this  applied  by  Dr.  Carson  to  his  opponents. 
True,  he  will  not  allow  impertinent  quihUers,  who,  to  support  the 
system  of  their  own  party,  continue  still  to  argue  against  the 
clearest  declarations  of  Scripture,  to  pass  without  rebuke.  And 
where  is  the  ardent  lover  of  truth,  who  will  not  say  that  such 
ought  to  be  rebuked  and  made  to  retire  ashamed  that  the  public 
mind  may  be  no  more  darkened  by  their  perversions  ?" 

These  honied  words  are  not  designed  merely  for  my  benefit. 
Dr.  Wardlaw,  Dr.  Henderson,  Dr.  Miller,  Dr.  Dwight,  Prof. 
Goodwin,  Mr.  Hall,  Mr.  Bickersteth,  and  others,  come  in  for  their 
full  share.  And  that  this  may  not  be  left  to  inference,  they  say, 
"  We  frankly  confess  that  the  more  we  read  on  the  Baptismal 
controversy,  the  more  our  charity  compels  us  to  struggle  against 
the  conviction  that  forces  itself  on  us,  that  on  this  subject  it  is  not 
light  that  is  most  wanted,  but  religious  honesty.'^  The  italics  are 
theirs. 

Who  does  not  admire  the  combined  wisdom  and  charity  of  this 
remarkable  passage  ?  Surely  the  true  way  to  convert  men  to  the 
opinions  of  Baptists,  is  kindly  to  inform  them,  that  it  requires  a 
special  effort  of  Christian  charity  to  resist  the  conviction  that  they 
are  such  dishonest  knaves,  that  argument  is  not  what  they  need, 
but  honesty.  Not  liglit,  but  to  be  rebuked  as  impertinent  quib- 
blers  who  ought  to  retire  ashamed,  that  the  public  mind  may  be 
no  more  darkened  by  their  perversions. 

No  wonder,  that  the  authors  of  such  an  exquisite  specimen  of 
"  Attic  salt,"  should  find  little  or  nothimg  to  censure  in  the  spirit 
of  Dr.  Carson. 

But  my  main  object  in  making  these  quotations  is,  to  show  that 
all  has  been  done  by  way  of  reply  to  mc,  that  is  to  be  expected. 
Dr.  Carson  read  my  argument,  and  replied  as  he  saw  fit;  and 
his  admirers  in  this  country  have  endorsed  his  reply  as  sufficient, 
and  more  than    sufficient.     The   great  work   of  defending  the 


246  MOTIVES    TO    REPLY    TO    DR.    CABSON.  §  74. 

cause  of  immersion  is  done,  and   so  done,  that  he  who  is  not 
satisfied  and  convinced,  does  not  need  argument  but  honesty. 

§  74.     Motives  to  reply  to  Dr.  Carson. 

In  this  state  of  the  case.  Dr.  Carson's  few  pages  of  reply 
deserve  more  notice  than  is  demanded  by  their  intrinsic  merit. 
True,  they  consist  chiefly  of  assertions,  which  it  belonged  to  him 
to  prove,  before  a  reply  could  be  demanded  of  me.  But  as  the 
Baptists  have  adopted  and  sanctioned  them,  as  indicating  their 
line  of  march  if  peradventure  they  should  undertake  a  campaign, 
I  shall  take  occasion  still  further  to  test  my  arguments  in  view  of 
Dr.  Carson's  assertions  as  to  the  ways  in  which  they  might  have 
been  met,  had  it  not  been  "  totally  unsuitable  to  the  object  of  his 
work"  thus  to  meet  them. 

I  had  anticipated  with  a  natural  interest,  the  results  of  the 
scrutiny  of  one  who  is  considered  by  so  many,  the  great  master 
in  the  philosophy  of  language,  the  leader  of  his  age,  the  Jonathan 
Edwards  of  the  nineteenth  century.  But  I  was  entirely  dis- 
appointed. I  had  not  conceived  that  anything  so  weak  could 
proceed  from  him.  I  long  said,  can  a  reply  be  needed  ?  But 
since  not  only  the  oracle  has  spoken,  but  the  listeners,  also,  are 
re-echoing  his  reply,  as  the  fitting  close  of  his  glorious  defence  of 
the  great  cause  of  immersion,  I  deem  it  proper  to  subject  at 
least  some  of  his  oracular  dicta  to  a  thorough  scrutiny. 

I  shall  not,  however,  confine  myself  to  Dr.  Carson's  last  brief 
reply  to  me,  but  shall  take  occasion  to  review  other  statements  in 
his  whole  work  of  nearly  five  hundred  pages,  and  to  introduce 
many  facts  which  I  had  reserved,  on  the  natural  supposition  that 
it  might  not  be  "totally  unsuitable"  to  Dr.  Carson's  great  defence 
of  immersion  to  examine  at  length  the  testimony  of  those  infallible 
witnesses,  the  Fathers,  on  that  subject.  But  as  no  such  examina- 
tion is  regarded  as  suitable  to  a  defence  of  immersion,  I  shall 
continue  to  adduce  from  the  Fathers  new  arguments  in  defence  of 
purification.     It  is  entirely  suitable  to  my  work,  to  prove  at  great 


§  75.  OUTLINE    OF    DR.    CARSOm's    REPLY.  247 

length,  that  the  Fathers  did  understand  /Sa-n-r/^w  in  the  ordinance 
a&  meaning  to  purify. 


§  75.     Outline  of  Dr.  Carson's  Reply. 

I  will  first  give  a  brief  sketch  of  the  contents  of  his  reply. 
He  begins  by  reiterating  and  trying  to  justify  his  charges  of  in- 
competency against  me,  and  that  on  grounds  exceedingly  frivo- 
lous. He  then  informs  us  that  nothing  alleged  by  me  at  all  affects 
his  view  of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers.  He  next  insinuates,  but 
does  not  affirm,  much  less  prove,  that  the  testimony  adduced  from 
them  does  not  prove  the  meaning  of  the  word  at  the  time  of  the 
institution  or  commencement  of  the  rite — a^  assertion  directly 
at  war  with  the  facts  just  stated,  from  the  Fathers. 

He  then  asserts,  with  his  usual  courtesy  towards  all  who  hap- 
pen to  differ  from  him,  "  That  the  Fathers  understood  the  word  as 
immersion  in  reference  to  the  institution  of  baptism,  no  scliolar 
ever  questioned.'^  If  Dr.  Carson  had  said  this  after  fairly  answer- 
ing my  arguments  from  the  Fathers,  it  would  have  been  less  rude 
and  indecorous.  But  to  leave  such  abundant  testimony  of  the 
Fathers  totally  unanswered,  and  yet  to  make  such  an  assertion,  is 
a  course  of  proceeding  which  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  leave  to  all 
candid  and  honorable  persons,  to  characterize  for  themselves. 

He  then  informs  us,  that  to  prove  at  any  length  that  the  Fathers 
understood  the  word  as  immersion,  would  be  totally  unsuitable  to 
his  present  work.  Dr.  Carson,  however,  seems  to  think  it  quite 
suitable  to  his  work,  to  go  at  great  length  into  the  testimony  ot 
men  who  never  saw  or  read  the  Septuagint,  or  the  New  Testa- 
ment. But  when  I  bring  proof  from  Greek  authors,  who  com- 
pared the  language  of  the  Septuagint  and  the  Greek  Testament 
togetiier,  and  stated  what  words  in  the  Septuagint  are  synonymous 
with  fSanrri^u  in  the  New  Testament,  he  then  discovers  that  it  is 
totally  unsuitable  to  his  work  to  prove  at  any  length  what  they 
thought  on  the  matter !  Unsuitable  to  his  work  !  If  Dr.  Car- 
son's great  end  was  to  defend,  at  all  hazards,  the  false  position  he 


248  OUTLINE    OF    DR.    CARSON 's    REPLY.  §  75. 

had  assumed  in  his  work,  1  agree  with  him  that  it  would  be  totally 
unsuitable  for  him  to  investigate  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers,  at 
any  length.  The  best  course  for  him,  no  doubt,  on  that  supposi- 
tion, would  be,  to  do  as  he  has  done  ;  that  is,  neither  to  quote  nor 
to  attempt  to  answer  one  of  the  positive  testimonies  of  the  Fathers, 
to  which  I  have  just  referred.  For  example,  if  he  had  quoted 
the  express  testimony  of  Athanasius  and  Basil,  that  ^a-TfTj^w  does 
mean  to  purify,  as  used  by  John  and  Christ,  it  would  have  been 
totally  inconsistent  with  all  his  positive  assertions  to  the  contrary, 
and  with  his  ridicule  and  contempt  of  me  for  teaching  the  same 
thing. 

But  to  abstain  entirely  from  the  use  of  such  ample  stores  of 
proof  as  he  declare^  to  be  treasured  up  in  the  Fathers,  would 
have  been  too  obviously  absurd.  Dr.  Carson  therefore  tells  us, 
"  I  shall  submit  two  or  three  arguments,  that,  I  hesitate  not  to  say, 
will  produce  conviction  on  the  mind  of  every  unprejudiced 
reader.''  He  then  devotes  three  pages  to  a  nominal  argument 
from  the  Fathei^,  in  which  he  is  careful  not  to  refer  to  pages, 
but  merely  asserts  that  certain  Fathers  use  the  word  thus  and 
so,  and  leaves  his  opponents  to  hunt  out  the  passages,  and  test  the 
correctness  of  his  assertions  and  inferences. 

Whilst  thus  engaged,  he  proposes,  by  the  way,  two  modes  of 
solving  all  the  passages  referred  to  by  me.  It  is  quite  remarka- 
ble that  these  modes  are  entirely  unlike  each  other,  so  that  al- 
though the  first  as  he  asserts  will  solve  all,  and  is  therefore  quite 
sufficient,  yet,  as  if  fearful  to  trust  it,  he  soon  produces  a  new  and 
entirely  different  mode  of  solution,  and  boldly  declares  that  this 
will  solve  all  ;  and  yet,  as  if  not  quite  confident  in  either,  he  de- 
clares that  even  if  the  Fathers  do  prove  a  secondary  sense,  it  is 
nothing  to  the  purpose.  In  the  midst  of  such  changing  resorts, 
he  is  very  careful  not  to  put  either  of  his  modes  of  solution  to 
the  proof,  or  give  any  evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  sweeping  asser- 
tions. The  fact  is,  that  both  alleged  modes  of  solution  are  base- 
less visions,  and,  what  is  more,  they  could  not  solve  my  quota- 
tions, if  true,  as  in  its  place  I  shall  prove. 


§  75.  OUTLINE    OF    DR.    CARSON's    REPLY.  249 

Such  is  the  course  pursued  by  Dr.  Carson,  in  meeting  my 
argument  from  the  Fathers.  It  is,  as  I  have  before  said,  clearly 
a  virtual  confession  of  defeat.  He  does  not,  indeed,  at  all  abate 
the  positiveness  of  his  assertion,  and  the  boldness  of  his  tone. 
After  so  much  insolence  and  boasting,  no  one  would  look  for  re- 
traction or  confession.  But  actions  speak  louder  than  words.  No 
man,  unless  he  was  hard  pressed,  and  destitute  of  all  other  re- 
sources, would  ever  pursue  the  course  adopted  by  Dr.  Carson. 

The  slight  effort  that  he  does  make  to  prove  his  point  from 
the  Fathers,  in  order  to  escape  the  absurdity  of  entirely  omitting 
those  whom  he  declares  to  be  the  strongest  witnesses  in  favor  of 
his  cause,  is  such  an  utter  failure,  that  it  is  equivalent  to  another 
confession  that  his  case  admits  of  no  defence. 

To  my  exposure  of  the  absurdity  of  his  principles,  he  replies 
solely  by  falsely  charging  me  with  omitting  an  essential  part,  when 
any  one  who  can  read  English,  can  see  with  his  own  eyes,  that  I 
printed  in  his  own  words,  and  fully  answered  what  he  charges  me 
with  omitting.  This  part  of  hfs  reply  is  so  feeble  and  so  false, 
that  I  felt  an  emotioi)  of  shame  for  him,  and  for  his  cause,  when 
I  read  it. 

To  my  defence  against  various  rude  and  indecorous  charges,  he 
makes  merely  a  feeble  show  of  reply,  and  retracts  none  of  them. 

He  concludes  his  piece  by  repeating  his  attacks  upon  my  com- 
petency as  a  scholar,  and  closes  his  glorious  defence  of  immer- 
sion, in  the  following  eminently  Christian  and  courteous  style. 

"  My  antagonist  may  be  a  very  ingenious  man,  and  a  very  pious 
man,  and,  in  many  respects,  a  very  clever  man,  but  he  has  not  a 
head  for  the  philosophy  of  language  :  and  I  say  this  with  as  little 
bad  feeling  as  I  say  that  the  three  angles  of  every  triangle  are 
equal  to  two  right  angles."  This  is  certainly  an  illustrious 
specimen  of  genuine  Auic  Salt.  Dr.  Carson,  no  doubt,  has 
monopolized  the  science  of  the  philosophy  of  language.  To  his 
stupendous  attainments  I  make  no  pretence. 

Having  given  this  general  view  of  his  reply,  I  proceed  to  some 
of  the  details. 

ir 


250  QUESTION    OF    PRINCIPLES.  §  76. 

§  76.      Question  of  Principles. 

I  will  first  notice  his  reply  to  my  exposure  of  his  principles. 

It  is  on  his  principles  that  Dr.  Carson  chiefly  prides  himself. 
He  speaks  as  an  eminent  discoverer  of  principles,  and  lays  down 
canons  with  great  authority,  and  charges  all  the  lexicographers 
and  commentators  with  ignorance  of  them,  because  they  assign  to 
/Sa-TT'TjJw  a  secondary  sense.  His  admirers  regard  him  as  in  ad- 
vance of  the  age,  as  to  the  philosophy  of  language.  I  therefore 
took  great  pains  to  collect  his  principles,  and  reduce  them  to  a 
system,  which  Dr.  Carson  never  did.  I  stated  them  always  in 
his  own  words.  The  main  battle,  in  the  present  discussion,  lies 
around  the  question  what  amount  of  evidence  is  necessary  io 
begin  a  secondary  sense,  when  the  primary  sense  is  known  and 
established — e.  g.  :  The  primary  sense  of  /Sa-n'-rj^w  being  to  im- 
merse, what  evidence  is  necessary  to  begin  the  proof  of  the  sense 
to  purify  ?  Dr.  Carson  says,  an  impossibility  of  the  sense  to  im- 
merse in  some  one  case.  But,  after  that,  he  says  that  a  lower 
degree  of  evidence  is  enough. 

His  principles  as  to  beginning  a  proof  of  a  secondary  sense,  I 
considered  and  exposed  in  §  46,  to  which  I  refer  the  reader.  His 
admission  that  after  the  proof  is  begun,  a  lower  degree  of  evi- 
dence is  sufficient,  I  stated  in  his  own  words,  in  §  51,  and  showed 
that  it  leads  to  a  logical  destruction  of  his  whole  system. 

Does  Dr.  Carson  make  any  reply  to  this  exposure  of  the  radi- 
cal unsoundness  of  the  principles  of  his  system  ? 

The  only  reply  that  he  attempts,  is  to  charge  me  falsely  with 
omitting  that  part  of  his  theory  which  I  stated  in  full,  and 
thoroughly  answered,  in  §  51. 

His  words,  as  stated  by  me,  are  these — "  As  soon  as  a  se- 
condary meaning  is  ascertained  on  sufficient  grounds,  I  do  not 
demand,  in  every  instance,  a  proof  of  impossibility  of  primary 
meaning,  before  the  secondary  is  alleged.  The  competition  be- 
tween rival  meanings,  must  then  be  ascertained  on  other  grounds." 

Thus  I  stated  his  principle  in  his  own  words,  and  yet  Dr.  Car- 


§  77.  ADDITIONAL    EXPOSURE    OF    DR.    CARSON.  2-51 

son  dares  to  say,  p.  492,  "  He  leaves  out  an  essential  part  of  my 
canon.  Impossibility  is  required  only  when  a  secondary  meaning 
is  not  in  proof.  If  in  any  occurrence  in  the  language  a  secondary 
meaning  is  in  proof,  impossibility  of  primary  meaning  is  not  es- 
sential to  warrant  the  application  of  a  secondary  meaning.  I  have 
again  and  again  explained  this  doctrine;"  and  I,  too,  have  stated 
it  in  Dr.  Carson's  own  words.  And  yet  thousands  who  confide  in 
Dr.  Carson's  veracity,  will  read  his  charge,  and  believe  that  I 
did  omit  what  Dr.  Carson  alleges,  and  will  never  know  that  I 
quoted  it  in  his  own  words,  and  showed  that  it  leads  to  absurdity, 
and  to  the  overthrow  of  his  system. 

So  far,  then,  as  my  exposure  of  Dr.  Carson's  principles  is  con- 
cerned, it  remains  entirely  unanswered,  and  in  full  force.  The 
candid  reader  can  find  it  in  §§  46,  49,  51. 

§77.     Additional  Exposure  of  Dr .  Carson. 

To  that  exposure,  1  will  now  add,  that  in  it  1  gave  Dr.  Carson 
the  benefit  of  a  false  statement,  as  to  his  own  practice,  which  I 
left  uncorrected. 

He  said  that  a  secondary  sense  cannot  be  admitted  till  the  im- 
possibility of  the  primary  is  proved,  in  some  one  instance. 

To  this  I  replied,  "  It  is  against  his  own  practice,  in  other  cases. 
Does  he  not  admit  that  (Saitro)  means  to  dye  or  color,  when  it  is 
applied  to  the  beard  and  hair  ?  And  is  it  impossible  to  dip  these  ? 
Improbable,  surely,  it  is,  but  not  half  so  much  so  as  the  dipping  of 
couches."     To  this  he  thus  replies. 

"  Here  I  am  caught  at  last,  surely  my  feet  are  entangled  in 
my  own  net.  But  let  the  reader  see  with  what  ease  I  can 
extricate  myself.  The  assertion  of  my  antagonist  arises  from 
his  want  of  discrimination.  I  admit  that  (SccTrru)  has  a  secondary 
signification,  because  such  signification  is  in  proof,  and  instances 
may  be  alleged  in  which  its  primary  meaning  is  utterly  impossi- 
ble. When  applied,  for  instance,  to  the  lake,  the  immersion  of  a 
lake  in  the  blood  of  a  frog,  is  beyond  the  bounds  of  possibility. 


252         ADDITIONAL  EXPOSURE  OF  DR.  CARSON.        §  77. 

Show  me  anything  like  this  with  respect  to  /oa-Trr/^w,  and  I  will 
grant  a  secondary  meaning." 

This  implies  that  he  begins  his  evidence  for  a  secondary  sense 
of /So-TTTW  with  the  case  of  the  lake  and  the  frog.  The  reverse  is 
the  fact.  He  first  establishes  a  secondary  sense  without  any 
reliance  at  all  on  that  case,  and  having  thus  established  a  second- 
ary sense,  he  applies  it  to  tiiat  case,  to  disprove  the  opinion  of  Dr. 
Gale,  that  /Socn'rw  there  means  immerse,  and  not  color. 

On  pp.  44,  45,  he  quotes  passages  containing  /Sa-TrTW  from 
Hippocrates,  Arrian,  ^Elian,  Nicolas  of  Damascus,  and  jEschylus, 
in  not  one  of  which  is  the  sense  immerse  impossible  if  his  various 
modes  of  evading  a  secondary  sense  in  /Da-TrTi^co  may  be  applied. 

In  view  of  these  passages,  and  these  alone,  he  says,  "  These 
examples  are  sufficient  to  prove,  that  the  word  (Saitro  signifies  to 
dye  in  general,  though  originally  and  still  usually,  applied  to 
dyeing  by  dipping.  Having  such  evidence  before  my  eyes,  I 
could  not  deny  this  to  my  opponents,  even  were  it  a  difficulty  as 
\o  the  subject  of  the  mode  of  baptism.  In  a  controversialist 
nothing  can  compensate  for  candor,'"  &c. 

And  yet  in  all  of  these  cases  no  impossibility  of  the  sense  im- 
merse exists.  Take  the  case  from  Hippocrates,  which  he  pro- 
duces first.  He  speaks  of  a  liquid  as  dyeing  garments  when  it 
drops  on  them  thus,  "  When  it  drops  on  the  garments  they  are 
dyed"  (^a<r^rsrai).  How  easy  now  is  it  to  allege,  in  the  manner 
of  Dr.  Carson,  that  the  reference  may  be  to  an  immersion  in 
water,  to  wash  out  the  stains  produced  by  the  dropping 
of  the  liquid  on  the  garments  !  Is  not  this  possible  ?  If  so, 
the  word  cannot  have  the  sense  to  dye.  The  next  case  is  the 
case  of  the  Indians  who  are  said  to  dye  ^aicrsw  their  beards.  It 
will  not  be  contended,  says  Dr.  Carson,  that  they  dyed  their 
beards  by  immersion.  But  can  they  not  dip  their  beards  ?  If  so, 
the  sense  to  dye  is  excluded.  Again  he  says  that  in  ^lian  /Sacp-;?, 
applied  to  the  hair,  "  denotes  dyeing  in  general,  for  hair  on  the 
head  is  not  dyed   by  dipping."      But  cannot  the   hair  on  the 


§  77.        ADDITIONAL  EXPOSURE  OF  DR.  CARSON.  253 

head  be  dipped  ?  If  so,  dyeing  is  excluded.  So  the  garment 
dyed  by  the  sword  of  ^Egisthus  could  have  been  dipped  by  it  in 
blood,  and  the  sense  to  dye  is  excluded.  In  the  case  of  the  lady 
to  whose  yellow  locks,  not  colored  by  art,  the  word  (ScccpaTs  is  ap- 
plied, all  that  is  necessary  is  to  resort  to  his  rhetorical  principles, 
and  to  quote  from  Milton  "  colors  dipped  in  heaven,"  and  then 
boldly  to  affirm  that  no  man  who  has  a  soul,  need  to  be  told  what 
is  meant  by  such  a  beautiful  catachrestic  use  of  words,  in  which 
the  term  "  dippings"  is  applied  to  what  had  not  been  dipped,  on 
the  ground  of  a  perceived  similarity  of  appearance. 

And  yet  Dr.  Carson,  following  the  impulse  of  common  sense, 
admits  and  defends  the  sense  to  dye,  without  reference  to  mode, 
in  all  these  cases.  He  acts  in  so  doing  on  my  principles,  and 
renounces  and  condemns  his  own. 

On  the  same  principles  he  discusses  other  passages,  and  then 
says,  "  Having  found,  heyond  reasonalle  doubt,  that  (Baitr!^,  in  its 
secondary  sense,  is  employed  literally  and  properly  to  denote 
dyeing,  even  when  there  is  no  dipping,  we  are  now  prepared  to 
examine  the  occurrence  of  the  word  in  the  battle  of  the  Frogs 
and  Mice,  which  has  been  so  obstinately  contested." 

That  is,  he  first  settles  the  question  as  to  a  secondary  sense  on 
my  principles,  and  then  applies  it  to  the  case  of  the  lake  and  the 
blood  of  a  frog.  Dr.  Carson  then  has  not  "  extricated  himself. 
He  is  caught  at  last.  Surely  his  feet  are  entangled  in  his  own 
net."  But  even  if  he  had  escaped  from  this  snare,  it  was  but  to 
fall  into  another,  as  in  §  51,  I  clearly  showed. 

The  truth  is,  that  after  all  his  boasting  and  the  glorification  of 
his  friends,  the  fundamental  principle  of  his  system  is  so  totally 
unsound  that,  when  his  common  sense  is  not  suppressed  by  what 
he  deems  the  essential  necessity  of  his  case,  he  adopts  secondary 
senses  just  as  I  do,  and  as  is  done  by  all  other  reasonable  men. 

Concerning  the  passages  on  which  I  have  just  commented  he 
says,  "  candor  cannot  say  that  there  is  any  such  implication  or 
reference"  (i.  e.  to  dipping),  "  from  such   examples  it  could  not 


254  BEGGING   THE    QUESTION.  §  78. 

be  known  even  that  lapto  has  the  meaning  to  dip."  And  yet  in 
every  case  the  sense  to  dip  is  possible.  The  cases  in  which 
/3a<n'T/fw  has  the  sense  to  purify,  adduced  by  me,  are  much 
stronger  than  any  of  these  passages,  and  yet  Dr.  Carson  will  not 
admit  the  sense  to  purify,  but  employs  the  whole  power  of  his 
ingenuity,  and  that  is  not  small,  in  devising  modes  of  evasion. 

§    78.     Begging  the  Question. 

In  my  exposure  of  Dr.  Carson's  principles  in  §  46, 1  showed  that 
he  had  begged  the  question.  He  boldly  declares  again  and  again, 
that  l3aifrii^o)  means  to  immerse  in  the  disputed  passages  in  the  New 
Testament,  because  it  has  this  meaning  "  in  every  instance  in  the 
whole  coiwpass  of  the  language.^^  In  fact  his  whole  argument  is 
based  on  a  constant  reiteration  of  this  assertion. 

This  I  called  a  bold  and  dogmatical  begging  of  the  question, 
because  it  assumes  the  very  point  in  debate,  and  does  this  when 
it  is  notorious  that  thousands  of  cases  of  the  use  of  this  word  exist 
which  he  has  never  seen. 

To  this  he  replies,  "  On  this  ground  universal  use  could  not  be 
assumed  with  respect  to  any  word,  for  all  the  instances  in  which 
any  word  has  been  used  can  never  be  produced."  I  reply,  then 
do  not  assume  it :  no  man  has  any  right  in  such  an  argument  to 
assert  concerning  what  is  so  notoriously  mutable  as  the  sense  of 
words,  more  than  he  knows  and  can  prove.  He  may  on  evidence 
assert  general  use,  or  extensive  use,  properly  enough.  But  when 
a  man  makes  such  an  assertion  as  that  the  word  (BairTi^u)  means 
immerse  in  Mark  vii.  4,  because  "  immersion  is  the  only  meaning 
of  the  word  in  every  instance  in  the  whole  compass  of  the  lan- 
guage," p.  448,  he  plainly  asserts  what  he  does  not  know  un- 
less he  has  seen  every  instance,  and  he  just  as  plainly  begs  the 
question  in  debate.  For  this  reason  I  again  assert  that  Dr. 
Carson's  replies  to  me,  and  to  all  his  antagonists,  are  based  entirely 
on  the  all-pervading  begging  of  the  question  pointed  out  by  me 
in  §  46. 


§  79.  MY    PRINCIPLES.  255 

§  79.     My  Principles. 

Dr.  Carson  charged  me  with  using  a  Unitarian  canon.  To 
this  I  replied  that  he  used  the  same  canon  that  I  did,  and  that  all 
persons  of  common  sense  employed  it.  The  canon  was  this, 
"  that  in  assigning  secondary  meanings  to  words,  we  are  to  re- 
gard the  nature  of  the  things  spoken  of."     §  49. 

That  he  used  it  I  proved,  because  he  admits  that  a  secondary 
sense  may  be  adopted  when  the  nature  of  the  thing  spoken  of 
renders  the  primary  sense  imj^ossible.  Thus  he  says  that  to  im- 
merse a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse  is  impossible.  The  nature 
of  the  thing  spoken  of  renders  it  impossible.  Hence  Dr.  Carson 
regards  the  nature  of  the  thing  spoken  of  as  well  as  I  in  giving 
secondary  senses.  The  only  difference  between  him  and  me  is, 
that  I  regard  the  nature  of  the  thing  spoken  of,  to  a  greater  extent 
than  he  professes  to  do.  If  it  renders  the  primary  meaning 
highly  improbable  1  regard  it,  even  if  I  have  not  found  one  case  of 
actual  impossibility.  But  till  Dr.  Carson  can  find  one  such  case, 
he  professes  to  regard  all  degrees  of  improbability,  however  high, 
as  nothing — as  mere  ciphers.  I  called  this  absurd,  because  the 
mere  finding  afterwards  of  one  case  of  impossibility  cannot  re-act 
so  as  to  change  fifty  mere  ciphers  into  fifty  significant  figures, 
each  one  of  great  value.  Yet  Dr.  Carson  does  and  must  go  on 
rejecting  probability  after  probability,  no  matter  how  high,  no 
matter  in  how  many  cases.  But  if,  at  last,  he  finds  one  case  of 
actual  impossibility,  then  each  case  which  was  before  a  mere 
cipher  now  becomes  a  significant  figure  of  great  value.  Such  a 
course  of  proceeding  I  call  absurd,  and  maintain  that  all  degrees 
of  probability  are  to  be  regarded  as  they  arise,  and  that  the  re- 
currence of  frequent  cases  of  strong  improbability  creates  a 
cumulative  argument  of  force  enough  to  decide  the  question. 

To  the  allegation  that  the  Unitarians  can  reason  against  the 
true  sense  of  the  words  of  the  Bible  on  the  ground  of  probabilities 
derived  from  the  nature  of  the  things  spoken  of,  I  replied,  that 
they  can  do  the  same  on  the  ground  of  possibilities  derived  from 


256  MY    PRINCIPLES.  §  'J'9- 

the  nature  of  the  things  spoken  of:  e.  g.  They  do  say  it  is  im- 
possible  for  three  divine  persons  to  be  one  God.  So  that  my 
principle  is  essentially  the  same  with  Dr.  Carson's,  and  the  extent 
to  which  I  apply  it  does  not  make  it  any  more  justly  liable  to 
objection  than  his  is. 

I  think  that  all  candid  persons  will  regard  this  as  a  perfect 
defence.  How  does  Dr.  Carson  reply  to  it?  He  does  three 
things.  He  omits  to  state  the  vital  part  of  my  defence.  He 
asserts  that  I  have  not  discrimination  enough  to  know  that  such  a 
defence  was  necessary  as  he  suppresses.  He  redoubles  his  as- 
sertion that  my  canon  is  a  Unitarian  canon,  at  the  same  time 
making  no  effort  to  prove  his  assertion,  and  of  course  making  no 
answer  to  my  suppressed  defence.  It  requires  uncommon  skill 
to  combine  so  much  misrepresentation  in  so  small  a  compass. 
Let  us  examine  his  words. 

"  I  have  charged  President  Beecher  with  using  a  Unitarian 
canon.  How  does  he  repel  the  charge  ?  He  tells  me  that  a 
good  canon  is  not  the  worse  for  being  used  by  Unitarians." 
True,  but  is  this  all  ?  Did  I  not  also  say,  and  prove,  that  my 
canon  was  a  good  canon  because  Dr.  Carson  and  all  persons  of 
common  sense  acted  on  it  ?  Is  not  this  the  very  essence  of  my  reply  ? 
Of  what  use  would  it  be  to  say  that  a  good  canon  is  not  the  worse 
for  being  used  by  Unitarians,  unless  I  first  showed  that  my 
canon  was  a  good  one,  by  the  fact  that  all  others  used  it,  not  even 
omitting  Dr.  Carson.  This,  therefore,  is  the  essence  of  the  argu- 
ment— yet  he  entirely  omits  it,  and  states  what  is  no  argument, 
as  if  it  was  all  my  reply. 

But  this  is  only  the  first  step.  He  proceeds,  "  I  redouble  the 
charge,"  that  is,  of  using  a  Unitarian  canon.  He  then  defines 
the  nature  of  a  Unitarian  canon.  "  A  Unitarian  canon  is  not  a 
sound  canon  employed  by  Unitarians  as  well  as  others.  A  Uni- 
tarian canon  is  one  which,  if  admitted,  would  prove  Unitarianism." 
The  import  of  his  redoubled  charge,  then,  is,  that  I  use  a  canon, 
not  sound,  not  used  by  others  as  well  as  Unitarians — and  a  canon 
which  will   prove  Unitarianism   if  admitted.       These  certainly 


§  79.  MY  PRixcirLES.  257 

are  grave  charges,  and  demand  proof.  What  proof  does  Dr. 
Carson  give  ?  Not  a  syllable,  but  his  redoubled  assertion.  And 
inasmuch  as  he  has  entirely  suppressed  my  proof  to  the  contrary, 
many  will  take  his  redoubled  assertions  for  confirmation  strong 
as  Holy  Writ.  But  this  is  not  the  end.  He  winds  up  with  his 
usual  homily  on  my  want  of  discrimination.  "  What  a  want  of 
discrimination  is  this  defence  !  A  canon  that  is  sound  ought  to 
be  used  by  all."  Th^s  asserting  that  it  is  truly  amazing  that  I 
had  not  sense  enough  to  know  that.  This  goes  far  beyond  sup- 
pressing my  defence.  He  not  only  suppresses  it,  but  expresses 
his  amazement  that  I  have  not  sense  enough  to  know  that  it  was 
necessary.  This,  too,  is  equivalent  to  an  assertion  that  I  never 
made  it !  Let  now  Dr.  Carson's  admirers  blush  for  him,  when 
they  remember  that  I  not  only  asserted  but  proved  that  my  canon 
was  used  by  all  persons  of  common  sense,  not  excepting  Dr. 
Carson  himself.  In  like  manner,  when  1  charged  on  him  a  gross 
misrepresentation  of  my  principles — what  is  his  reply  to  a 
charge  so  serious?  "He  complains  that  I  unjustly  represent 
him  as  founding  on  probability  independently  of  the  meaning  of 
the  word.  I  reiterate  the  charge."  This  is  a  fair  specimen  of 
Dr.  Carson's  general  course.  His  example  says  to  all  his  ad- 
mirers "  never  confess — never  retract — all  that  is  necessary  is  to 
reiterate  the  charge — thousands  will  see  and  believe  you  who 
will  never  see  or  hear  of  any  reply."  Will  they  eulogize  and 
adopt  such  an  example  ? 

But  he  proceeds,  "  Does  he  not  perceive  that  bj^  the  meaning 
of  the  word  I  understand  a  previously  ascertained  meaning  ? 
To  this  he  does  not  even  pretend.  I  found  all  on  meaning  pre- 
viously ascertained  ;  this  is  a  fundamental  difference  between  him 
and  me."  I  reply — when  in  the  first  instance  he  admits  that 
^a.ifT(ji  means  to  color,  docs  he  found  on  a  previously  ascertained 
meaninrr?  No:  he  founds,  as  I  have  shown,  on  the  nature  of  the 
thing  spoken  of.  He  departs  from  a  previoiish/  nsccrlahicd  mean- 
ing on  that  ground,  and  introduces  a  new  one.  With  regard  to 
/Sa'TrTjJw  I  acton  the  same  principles ;  hence,  there  is  not  a  funda- 


258  MY   PRINCIPLES.  §  79. 

mental  difference  between  us.  It  is  only  a  difference  as  to  the 
degree  of  difficulty  in  retaining  the  original  sense,  which  is 
necessary,  in  order  to  authorize  us  to  introduce  a  new  and  second- 
ary sense. 

It  is  true,  that  I  do  not,  like  Dr.  Carson,  profess  to  reject  all 
probabilities,  even  the  highest,  till  I  can  find  a  case  in  which  the 
original  meaning  is  impossible ;  it  is  true,  that  I  give  much  weight 
to  a  cumulative  argument  involving  a  combination  of  probabilities. 
But  this  is  not  all  that  I  do.  I  regard,  as  I  stated  at  large,  three 
things  at  least:  1.  General  laws  of  language  as  to  similar 
changes,  in  analogous  cases,  ascertained  by  acknowledged  ex- 
amples. 2.  I  regard  the  original  and  primary  sense  of  the  word,  in 
order  to  see  what  effects  flow  from  the  action  indicated  by  it  in 
different  circumstances,  and  to  what  changes  it  would  naturally 
be  subject.  3.  I  regard  the  circumstances  of  the  speaker,  and 
the  nature  of  the  subject  spoken  of.  Unless  a  man  states  all  this 
in  representing  my  principles  I  regard  him  as  misrepresenting 
me.  Do  Dr.  Carson's  words  truly  represent  all  this  ?  He 
says, 

"  Mr.  Beecher  proceeds  on  an  axiom  that  is  false,  fanatical,  and 
subversive  of  all  revealed  truth,  namely,  that  meaning  is  to  be 
assigned  to  words  in  any  document  not  from  the  authority  of  the 
use  of  language,  ascertained  by  acknowledged  examples,  but  from 
views  of  probability  of  the  thing  related,  independently  of  the 
testimony  of  the  words." 

This  implies  that  I  regard  the  probability  of  the  thing  related 
alone,  and  do  not  regard  the  general  laws  of  language  in  similar 
and  acknowledged  changes — and  that  I  do  not  regard  the  primitive 
sense  of  the  word,  which  is  false.  Is  there  no  misrepresentation 
in  such  suppression  ? 

Dr.  Carson  knows  how  important  an  influence  the  primitive 
sense  of  the  word  exercises  on  the  formation  of  secondary  senses. 
On  p.  53,  he  says,  "  If  the  word  {(SairTc^)  originally  meant  pour,  or 
sprinkle,  no  process  can  be  supposed  by  which  it  can  come  to 
mean  to  dye.     Upon  our  view  there  is  a  connecting  link  which 


§  79.  MY    PRINCIPLES.  259 

joins  these  two  meanings  together  notwithstanding  their  great 
diversity."  And  does  not  a  similar  connecting  link  join  the  pri- 
mary sense  of  /Sa-rrj Jw  to  the  sense  to  purify  ?  I  do  not  then 
regard  the  probability  of  the  thing,  narrated  alone,  and  indepen- 
dently of  the  primary  sense  of  the  word.  The  primary  sense  of 
the  word  itself  renders  the  secondary  sense  which  I  claim,  highly 
probable,  as  I  have  elsewhere  showij. 

But  is  it  not  strange  that  Dr.  Carson  did  not  see  that  he  was 
open  to  a  fatal  retort  ?  Just  put  possibility  in  the  place  of  proba- 
bility, and  it  will  thus  read,  "  Dr.  Carson,  in  assigning  to  /b'ocTrTw 
the  sense  to  dye,  proceeds  on  an  axiom  that  is  false,  fanatical,  and 
subversive  of  all  revealed  truth,  namely,  that  meaning  is  to  be 
assigned  to  words  in  any  document,  not  from  the  authority  of  the 
use  of  language  ascertained  by  acknowledged  examples,  but  from 
views  of  the  possibility  of  the  thing  narrated,  independently  of  the 
testimony  of  the  word" — e.  g. :  Unitarians  say,  three  persons  can- 
not be  one  God  ;  Infidels  say,  Jonah  could  not  have  lived  three 
days  in  a  whale's  belly ;  water  enough  to  flood  the  world,  above 
the  tops  of  the  highest  mountains,  could  not  be  found,  &;c.  &c. ; 
hence  we  are  not  to  interpret  the  words  as  meaning  such  things. 
But  I  do  not  make  the  retort.  Dr.  Carson's  procedure  is  sound, 
as  far  as  he  goes,  even  if  infidels  abuse  it.  He  is  in  error  only 
in  professing  to  refuse  to  regard  probabilities  according  to  their 
true  worth. 

In  reply  to  my  statements  as  to  the  cumulative  argument,  com- 
posed of  many  independent  cases  of  probabilities,  he  says,  "  in 
defending  the  combination  of  his  probabilities,  he  makes  a  dis- 
tinction as  to  the  nature  of  the  subjects."  What  this  alleged 
distinction  is,  and  what  it  has  to  do  with  the  case  in  hand,  he  does 
not  explain  ;  that  I  make  it,  he  does  not  prove.  I  deny  that  I 
make  any  such  distinction.  He  proceeds,  "  but  on  all  subjects 
nothing  is  nothing"  (no  one  will  be  hardy  enough  to  deny  this) ; 
"  and  IF  I  have  proved  that  the  probabilities  are  nothing  separately, 
nothing  must  they  be  in  combination."  True,  if  you  have  proved 
it.     Rut  you  have  not  proved  it,   but  only  asserted  it,  without 


2i:0  MY   PRINCIPLES.  §  "79. 

an  effort   at  proof.     Is  not  this  an  illustrious  specimen  of  rea- 


soning ? 


But  even  if  I  do  not  make  a  distinction  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  Dr.  Carson  does,  for  he  proceeds,  "  Besides,  the  probabili- 
ty that,  independently  of  testimony,  a  thing  was  done  in  a  cer- 
tain way,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  probability  that  a* 
word  has  a  certain  meaning.  That  A.  killed  B.  may  be  very 
probable  from  many  circumstances,  but  the  moment  that  A.  proves 
an  alibi,  or  that  it  is  proved  that  C.  is  guilty  of  the  murder,  all  the 
previous  probabilities  are  of  no  account."  Now  suppose  all  this 
to  be  true,  what  is  it  to  Dr.  Carson's  purpose  ?  If  the  probability 
that  a  thing  was  or  was  not  done  in  a  given  way,  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  the  probability  that  a  word  has  a  certain  mean- 
ing, then  what  bearing  has  the  supposed  case  on  the  point  at  issue, 
which  is  the  probability  that  a  word  has  a  certain  meaning  ?  If 
it  has  any  force,  it  is  against  Dr.  Carson-.  I  admit  that  previous 
probabilities  that  A.  did  a  certain  act  may  be  destroyed  by  posi- 
tive testimony  that  he  was  not  where  the  act  was  done,  or  that 
another  did  it.  Does  it  therefore  follow  that  the  probability  tha 
fSa'jrri^u  has  a  given  sense  in  a  given  case,  can  be  destroyed  by 
an  alibi,  or  by  proving  that  some  other  word  has  that  sense  ?  Dr. 
Carson  must  say  that  the  cases  are  unlike.  Of  course  it  does  not 
follow.  Why  then  did  he  adduce  the  case  ?  There  are  no  such 
ways  of  destroying  the  probability  that  f'iaitri^u,  in  certain  cases, 
means  to  purify,  and  his  own  statement  shows  it.  And  is  it  pos- 
sible that  a  man  of  such  astonishing  "perspicacity"  and  "dis- 
crimination" has  been  fairly  detected  in  reasoning  against  him- 
self? 

Such  is  Dr.  Carson's  mode  of  meeting  my  refutation  of  his 
principles,  and  defence  of  my  own.  I  have  one  thing  to  add — 
his  reply  indicates  both  agitation  and  confusion.  He  has  written 
with  no  continuity  or  system,  on  the  fundamental  question  of 
principles.  Two  paragraphs  on  that  question  occur  on  p.  492. 
Then  topics  of  all  sorts  follow.  Then,  on  the  top  of  p.  .494, 
comes  in  another  paragraph.     He  then  goes  off  to  other  topics. 


§  80.  ARGUMENT    FROM    PREPOSITIONS.  261 

Then,  in  the  middle  of  the  page,  is  another  paragraph.  Then  he 
goes  off  to  other  topics.  Then,  at  the  bottom  of  the  page,  is  the 
concluding  paragraph. 

The  Sybil's  leaves,  scattered  by  the  wind,  and  gathered  up  at 
venture,  were  not  more  confused  than  the  arrangement  of  Dr. 
Carson's  thoughts,  on  the  subject  of  the  principles  of  language. 

If  "  he  had  a  head  for  the  philosophy  of  language,"  he  seems 
at  least  to  have  had  no  head  for  the  philosophy  of  arrangement. 
Instead  of  the  light  of  well  arranged  reasonins;,  we  find  nothing 
but  the  scattered  dust  of  false  statements,  and  misrepresentations. 

§  80.     Argumeyit  from  Prepositions. 

I  have  already  remarked  that  Dr.  Carson  has  made  no  reply  to 
the  argument  from  the  use  of  the  same  prepositions  after  (Ba'Tfrl^u) 
as  after  xa^a^/^^w.  His  course,  on  this  part  of  the  argument,  de- 
serves particular  notice.  He  is,  for  the  most  part,  entirely  silent. 
To  the  greater  part  of  the  argument,  nothing  could  be  said,  and 
therefore  he  was  silent.  But  one  remark  occurred,  concerning 
the  use  of  h  after  fSccj^rKfixn,  on  which  he  thought  he  could  con- 
vict me  of  an  inaccuracy,  and,  in  a  moment,  he  seized  on  this, 
and  reiterated  his  attack  on  my  competency.  "  This,"  says  he, 
"  is  an  error  that  no  philologist  could  hold."  "  Any  person  who 
has  ever  passed  the  threshold  of  the  temple  of  philology  must 
know,"  &c.  "  Had  I  no  other  evidence  that  the  President,  however 
great  a  man  he  may  be  in  other  respects,  is  not  a  philologist,  I  could 
take  his  measure  from  this  single  observation."  P.  493.  The  contro- 
versialist, who,  like  Dr.  Carson,  habitually  indulges  in  this  mode 
of  assailing  those  who  happen  not  to  agree  with  him,  ought  him- 
self to  be  infallible.  But  if  he  not  only  refuses  to  meet  the  ar- 
gument as  a  whole,  but  blunders  in  assailing  even  his  one  se- 
lected point  of  attack,  then  let  him  not  expect  to  escape  the 
natural  recoil  on  himself.  Whilst  he  attempts  to  take  my  mea- 
sure, let  him  not  be  surprised  if  others  measure  him. 

Before  repelling  this  attack,  I  shall  take  occasion  to  state  more 


262  ARGUMENT    FROM    PREPOSITIONS.  §  80. 

fully  the  nature  of  the  argument  from  prepositions,   and   to  illus- 
trate and  confirm  it  by  additional  examples. 

When  considering  the  source  from  which  purification  proceeds, 
none  can  deny  that  the  prepositions  ix  and  d'Tro  often  follow  xa&a^i- 
?'w.  Thus  Chrysostom  (Hom.  6,  in  Math.)  says — wCtts^  s^  vSa- 
rog  xai  irvs6(xc/.Tos,  outw  a-TTo  Sax^uov  xai  s'^oixoXo^'/jO'sojf  xa^ai^ofxs^a 
ifaXiv,  i.  e.  as  we  derive  purity  in  the  first  instance  from  water 
and  the  Spirit,  so,  if  we  sin  afterwards,  we  again  derive  purity 
from  tears  and  confession.  Here  both  aiio  and  h  follow  xa^aj^w,  to 
purify.  With  this  compare  the  use  of  a-Tfo  after  ^am-rKfiJ^a,  in 
Origen — jixaxa^io^  6  ^yj  5soixsvos  [3 WK'Titf^ar og  tov  d-ro  TtuPog.  Happy 
is  he  who  does  not  need  that  baptism,  i.  e.  purification,  which  is 
to  be  derived  from  fire.  Compare  also  the  language  of  Basil, 
on  which  my  remark  was  based,  to  ((BctifrKfixa)  s|  vSarog  iig  {ksra- 
voiav  xai  TO  (/Sd'^'TjtT'jxa)  ix  <r(v£{j[Larog  hg  ava^svvTjtfjv.  The  Bap- 
tism, i.  e.  purification,  which  is  derived  from  water  unto  repent- 
ance— the  baptism,  i.  e.  purification,  which  is  derived  from  the 
Holy  Spirit  unto  regeneration.  With  this,  next  compare  Basil's 
assertion,  shortly  after,  that  those  who  have  sinned  in  a  less  de- 
gree Siovrai  tou  a-ro  tou  i)5oLTog  xada^i(f^ov,  need  the  purification  de- 
rived from  water — but  those  who  have  committed  aggravated  sins 
need  tou  sx  tov  firvfog  xa^a^tf^ixou,  the  purification  which  proceeds 
from  fire  ;  let  him  also  remember  that  in  this  connexion  Basil  de- 
fines ^cuitTKfij.a  as  xa&a^Kf^og,  and  who  can  doubt  what  is  the  force 
of  sx  in  the  phrases  (ociTrrKfixa  s|  vdarog  and  (ScLTCrid^La  ix  •n'vsu/jLa- 
Tog  ?  The  prepositions  that  follow  the  sense  immerse  are  ^v  or 
slg  ;  these  are  omitted  ;  those  that  follow  xa^a^jtfjxof  are  airo  and  ix  ; 
these  are  both  used  after  ^u'n'TKfixu,  and  I  declare  them  to  be  at 
war  with  the  idea  of  immersion.  But  let  us  not  stop  here.  Let 
us  look  at  the  other  prepositions  which  follow  xa&a^i<f(i6g.  I  re- 
mark,  therefore,  that  before  the  word  denoting  the  pollution  from 
which  we  are  cleansed,  d-Tfo  is  used  in  connexion  with  xa&a^i^u. 
Thus  Paul,  in  2  Cor.  vii.  1,  says — xa^a^/tfoj/xsv  kavroug  a-n-o  iravrog 
jaoXutfjaou  tfa^xoj  xai  <7rvsu|xaToj — Let  us  purify  ourselves  from  all 
pollution  of  the  flesh  and  the  Spirit.     So  Heb.  ix.    14,  affj^a  X^itf. 


§  80.  ARGUMENT    FROM    PREPOSITIONS.  263 

Tov  xct&a^isT  rrjv  o'uvsitJrjCiv  Ojxwv  ct-Tro  vgx^ojv  s^yuv — The  blood  of 
Christ  shall  cleanse  your  conscienceyrom  dead  works.  Compare 
now  the  use  of  diro  to  denote  the  same  thing  after  (Saifri^u  in 
Justin  Martyr — (Ba'TTiff^riTS  t-^v  4'^X'*!^  d-n'o  0^7%,  diro  (p^ovou,  dnto 
IxKfovg.  Be  baptized  as  to  your  soul  from  anger,  envy,  hatred,  &c. 
Who  does  not  see  that  the  preposition  d'To,  so  used,  demands  the 
sense  "  be  purified  mentally  from  anger,  envy,  hatred,  and  lo  ! 
your  body  is  pure !" 

The  preposition  ev,  after  jSaitTii^u,  is  ambiguous.  It  may  be 
used  to  denote  in  or  hy.  But  8id,  followed  by  the  genitive,  is  not 
ambiguous ;  it  denotes  that  by  which  an  effect  is  produced. 
Hence  it  follows  xada^i^w,  to  denote  that  by  which  purity  is  pro- 
duced. Hence,  in  the  account  of  baptisms  ascribed  to  Athanasius, 
this  language  occurs — -ttoXXo;  did  ifraKffjidTC^v  jxoXuvavre^  ro  dyiov 
/Sa-Tfrj'j'fAa  Sid  6ax^v(jjv  sxa^a^jV^igo'av.  "  Many,  who  had  by  sins  de- 
filed their  hol}^  baptism,  have  been  purified  by  tears."  But  the 
same  author  describes  the  sixth  baptism  on  the  list  as  to  ^dirnd- 
jxa  Sid  Saxp6(j}v.  Who  can  help  seeing  that  8id,  so  used,  demands 
the  sense  purification  by  tears,  in  the  last  case  just  as  in  the 
first?  The  sense  immersion  would  demand  sv,  i.  e.  immersion 
in  tears,  and  cannot  be  followed  by  Sid  in  the  same  way  as  xa^a- 

This  use  of  Sid  with  the  genitive  after  (BaitTi^cA),  is  very  exten- 
sive. But  in  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  occurs  a  case  of  peculiar 
power.  He  believed  that  Christ,  in  fact,  was  immersed,  but  he  does 
not  employ  ^a'Trri^w  to  convey  this  idea,  but  xaraSvu.  Thus  he 
represents  Christ  as  saying  to  John — xaraSvcfov  (uis  toTs  Io|'(Javou 
^sTd^QiS.  "  Immerse  me  in  the  streams  of  Jordan."  But  after  ^aie- 
Ti'^w  he  uses  Sid  with  the  genitive,  so  as  to  demand  the  sense  to 
purify — fSdiTTKfov  (xs  <rov  fAs'XXovra  /3a'ff<r»^Siv  rovg  'r^KtrsCovras  Si^ 
vSaros,  xa.1  crvsufAarocr,  xoli  ifv^os.  "  Purify  me  who  am  about  to  purify 
those  who  believe  by  water,  and  the  Spirit,  and  fire."  He  then 
changes  the  construction  ;  instead  of  ^la  with  the  genitive,  using 
the  dative  in  the  causative  sense,  as  an  equivalent,  and  in  apposi- 
tion, and  thus  proceeds — u^an  duvajxsvw  ufoirXuvon  twv  afAa^rjwv  <rov 


264  ARGUMENT    FROM    PREPOSITIONS.  §  80. 

/So'^/do^ov,  'jrvsuixari  Suva^SMOJ  rovg  •)(cnxovs  'rrvsup.arixovs  a'n'S^y a(fa(f&ai, 
'n'v^i  'jfScpvxQTt  xaraxaisiv  ras  tojv  avojut/iifjLaTwv  axav^aj — "  by  water,  I 
say,  which  is  able  to  wash  away  the  filth  of  sin,  by  the  Spirit, 
who  can  make  the  earthly  spiritual ;  by  fire,  whose  nature  it  is  to 
burn  up  the  thorns  of  sin."  Here  he  exhibits  the  purifying  energy 
of  the  water,  the  Spirit,  and  fire,  by  which  Christ  was  to  purify 
believers,  not  in  which  he  was  to  immerse  them  ;  the  construction 
and  scope  forbid  and  exclude  the  idea  of  immersion. 

■  This  use  of  Si  a  after  iBairri^u  occurs  very  impressively  in  the 
Acta  Passionis  S.  Pamphillii  Martyris.  The  writer,  speaking  of 
two  who  were  burnt  to  death,  says,  SusTv  tw  6ia  ir\)^os  Ida-iiTid^iMn 
TsXsjo^sWwv.  They  two  being  perfected  by  the  purification  &2/ fire 
— Gallandias  Bibliotheca,  Vet.  Pat.  Venice,  1765.  Vol.  iv.  p. 
43. 

Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecc.  Lib.  6,  Cap.  4,  says  of  a  female  catechu- 
men, who  was  burnt  before  her  baptism  by  water,  to  ^anrnd^a  <ro 
SicLirxjfogXoi^ovda  rov  /3»ov  g|sX7;Xu^£v.  *'  She  received  the  purifica- 
tion which  is  hy  fire,  and  departed  from  this  life." 

John  of  Damascus,  Paris,  1712,  Vol.  i.  p.  261,  says  of  the  sixth 
baptism,  that  it  was  to  (3airTi(f^ci  5ioL  jxsTavoia^  xcci  5axpvo)v.  A  pu- 
rification by  repentance  and  tears  ;  not  an  immersion  in  repentance 
and  tears.  After  referring  to  John's  statement,  I  baptize  you  with 
water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  adds, 
lepoxa&oLipsi  ouv  o  loavvT]^  S'ttI  to  -Trvsu/xa  6ia  tou  vSoltos,  therefore  John 
purifies  beforehand  by  water,  to  prepare  the  way  for  the  Spirit. 
When  /Sa'TTTi^w  and  xada^/^w  thus  in  the  same  way  take  after 
them  dia,  with  the  genitive,  and  xa^api,^w,  as  here,  takes  the  place  of 
[Bairri^u,  who  does  not  see  that  the  words  are  synonymous  1 

Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Gregory  Nazianz.,  and  Clemens  Alexand., 
furnish  passages  which  will  place  the  argument  from  prepositions 
in  a  still  more  striking  light. 

Gregory  Na!zianz.,  vol.  i.  p.  641,  thus  speaks  of  baptism,  "In- 
asmuch  as  we  are  composed  of  two  natures,  the  body  and  the 
soul,  the  one  visible,  and  the  other  invisible,  purification  is  of  two 
kinds  {diTTTi  xut  rj  xa^aptfjg),  that  is,  by  water,  and  by  the  Spirit 


§  80.  ARGUMENT  FROM  PREPOSITIONS.  265 

(Si'  u6"aroj  TS  (priij.i  xal  <:r\isv^aros),  the  former  being  received  visibly 
and  bodily,  the  other  concurring  invisibly  and  spiritually,  the  one 
being  typical,  the  other  real  and  effectual,  purifying  the  depths  of 
the  soul." 

In  the  same  strain  speaks  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  p.  15  ;  Cateche- 
sis  3;  Paris,  1631. 

"  As  man  is  of  a  two-fold  nature,  being  composed  of  body  and 
spirit,  so  also  is  purification  of  two  kinds  ((5i-7rXouv  xa<  to  xa^aptfiov), 
one  spiritual,  by  that  which  is  spiritual,  the  other  bodily,  by  that 
which  is  material ;  the  water  purifies  the  body — the  spirit  seals 
the  soul." 

In  striking  correspondence  with  this,  Clemens  Alexand.,  vol.  2, 
•p.  988,  declares  that  baptism  is  of  two  kinds  (to /Sa-TrrjCfxa  ouv  ^i«r- 
XoCv  avaXoYwj),  one  material,  by  water,  the  other  spiritual,  by  the 
Spirit  (to  jxsv  aKf&rirov  Si'  vSaros  to  6s  vot^tov  6ia  'ni'vSu^MTOs). 

So  then,  Gregory  Nazianz.  speaks  o^Sittyj  xa&oip(fig,  Cyril  of  ^i-r- 
Xouv  xaScLpcfiov,  and  Clemens,  of  SiirXovv  /Sa-n-Tjo'fxa.  In  each  case 
one  of  the  two  kinds  is  material,  and  the  other  is  spiritual,  analo- 
gous to  it.  The  purification  is  6i'  vSarog  xal  crvsyju-aTo? — the  bap- 
tism also  is  6i'  vSuTog  and  Siol  -rvsupLaTog-. 

Nothing  can  more  clearly  show  that  the  sense  of  ^oLTerid^ia  is 
not  immersion,  but  purification.  Had  it  been  the  design  of  the 
writer  to  describe  two  kinds  of  immersion,  one  in  water,  and  the 
other  in  the  Spirit,  he  would  have  used  s/j  or  ^v,  and  not  Sik, 

Here  then  is  unanswerable  proof  that  xa^ap<j'/f,  xadaptffov,  and 
/Sa-TrTiCfjia,  are  in  these  passages  used  as  synonymes. 

The  analogy  between  spiritual  purification  and  material  purifi- 
cation,  is  by  Clement  viewed  in  this  case  as  corresponding  to  the 
analogy  between  spiritual  and  material  fire  ;  for  as  material  water 
quenches  material  fire,  sO  does  the  Spirit,  when  it  purifies  the 
mind,  defend  it  against  spiritual  fire. 

He  also  elsewhere  traces  the  analogy  between  heavenly  spiri- 
tual water,  and  earthly  material  water — the  latter  purifying  the 
body,  the  former  the  soul. 

Such  being  the  facts,  it  needs  no  argument  to  show  how  these 

12 


266  DR.  Carson's  magnanimity.  §  81. 

writers  understood  the  contrast  between  the  baptism  of  John 
and  of  Christ.  "  I  indeed  purify  you  by  water,  but  he  shall 
'purify  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  must  have  been  the  sense 
attached  by  them  to  the  passage. 

The  fact  that  h  here  follows  fBa'rtri^c^,  and  that  in  itself  it  can 
be  rendered  either  by  or  in,  emboldened  Dr.  Carson  to  claim  that 
the  sense  is,  to  immerse  in  water,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Against  this  view  Eusebius  of  Cesarea  expressly  testifies.  He 
first  declares  that  sxxadapisi  iv  irvsuiLa-n,  in  Is.  iv.  4,  does  not  differ 
in  sense  from  (^aTtrldsi  sv  <n'\is6ixccli  as  used  by  John,  and  then  adds, 
"  In  the  one  case  (Isaiah  iv.  4),  fiery  words,  powerfully  affecting 
them,  wrought  in  them  a  purification  from  sin.  In  like  manner 
it  is  said  that  the  Saviour  would  purfy  (^airlidsiv),  not  with  water, 
but  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire."  Nothing  can  be  more 
explicit.  He  thus  removes  the  ambiguity  of  sv  after  /3a';r7jjw, 
and  gives  to  the  dative  preceded  by  sv  the  same  causative  sense 
which  is  indicated  by  Si  a,  and  the  Genitive,  just  as  in  the  sen- 
tence last  quoted  from  Gregory  Thaum,  the  causative  sense  was 
given  to  the  dative  without  a  preposition,  as  equivalent  to  6ia,  with 
the  genitive.  Thus  are  our  translators  defended  for  rendering 
the  passage,  I  indeed  baptize  with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  with 
the  Holy  Ghost,  instead  of  immerse  in  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  Dr.  Carson  claims. 

Thus  plain  is  it  that/3a'7r'7<^w  is  used  with  the  same  pi  epositions 
as  are  used  with  xa^apj^w,  and  that  these  prepositions  demand  the 
sense  to  purify  in  both  cases  alike,  and  in  both  exclude  the  sense 
to  immerse. 

§    81.     Dr.  Carson^ s  Magnanimity. 

This  argument  I  indicated  briefly  in  §  56 ;  and  in  §  64,  at  the 
close,  I  illustrated  the  similar  use  of  dice  after  /Sa-TTj^w  and  xa^apj  Jw 
in  parallel  columns,  also  in  §  50  I  illustrated  the  use  of  airo  after 
fBuirri^u,  by  Justin  Martyr.  I  regard  it  as  an  argument,  of  itself 
perfectly  decisive  and  unanswerable. 


§81.  DR.    CARSON "S    MAGNANIBIITY  .  267 

Passing  by  all  this,  Dr.  Carson  selects  from  §  55  the  assertion 
that  Basil  uses  sx  after  f^airTiCixa,  a  preposition  at  war  with  the  idea 
to  immerse.  Here  he  calls  to  mind  the  English  phrase  to  dip  up 
a  bucket  of  water,  used,  he  thinks,  by  Dr.  Miller,  and  says  that  on 
the  same  principle  it  could  be  proved  that  dip  does  not  mean  im- 
merse. "  Let  a  foreigner  interpret  this  on  the  principle  of  Presi- 
dent Beecher.  Up,  says  the  critic,  signifies  ascension  ;  dipping, 
then,  cannot  denote  immersing,  for  this  implies  sinking.  The  pre- 
position is  at  war  with  immerse  as  the  meaning  of  the  word  dip. 
Dip  must  then  signify  to  raise,  or  draw,  or  lift,  not  to  immerse — 
and  this  critic  would  know  English  as  the  President  knows  Greek." 

This  is  a  fair  instance  of  Dr.  Carson's  mental  enlargement. 
He  merely  picks  a  single  flaw  at  most,  but  does  not  touch  the 
argument  as  a  whole.  Before  him  is  Basil's  explicit  definition  of 
(BaviTKf^a  as  meaning  purification.  Of  this  he  says  nothing.  But 
an  imaginary  error  as  to  sx  gives  him  a  chance  to  reiterate  his 
attacks  on  my  capacity  ;  it  cannot  be  passed  by.  But  he  does  not 
even  here  find  one  flaw.  He  does  not  prove  that  the  preposition 
wp,  can  follow  the  idea  to  immerse — for  either  that  mode  of  ex- 
pression is  elliptical,  and  is  what  grammarians  call  a  constructio 
pregnans,  so  that  up  belongs  to  a  verb  implied,  or  else  the  verb  dip 
has  changed  its  sense,  and  does  not  mean  immerse.  When  men 
speak  of  dipping  water,  or  of  dipping  out  water,  do  they  mean  that 
the  water  in  question,  and  which  is  said  to  be  dipped,  is  immersed 
into  water  or  into  anything  else  ?  Directly  the  reverse.  It  is 
taken  out  of  water.  Surely  there  is  no  immersion  in  taking 
water  out  of  water.  But  as  it  is  taken  out  hy  dipping  a  vessel  in, 
it  is  said  to  be  dipped  out,  that  is  taken  out  hy  dipping.  To  dip 
out  water,  then,  is  to  dip  a  vessel  into  water  and  then  take  out  what 
enters  it.  So  to  dip  up  a  bucket  of  water,  is  to  dip  a  bucket  into 
water  and  fill  it,  and  then  raise  it  up.  Up,  then,  does  not  belong 
to  dip.  For  it  is  absurd  in  the  very  nature  of  things  to  say  that 
the  preposition  up  can  indicate  the  downward  motion  of  immer- 
sion. It  indicates  the  upward  motion  of  a  bucket  which  has 
been  filled  by  first  dipping  it  downward  into  water. 


268  DR.  carson's  magnanimity.  §  81. 

And  in  one  case  Dr.  Carson  himself  finds  occasion  to  resort  to 
the  same  principle.  I  had  urged  the  use  of  cc-n-o  as  at  war  with  the 
idea  immerse  in  the  expression  fSaz^ri^^oixsvos  a-ro  vsxpoiJ,  baptized 
from  a  dead  body.  He  immediately  resorts  to  ellipsis  and  a 
pregnant  construction.  He  asserts  the  sense  to  be,  immersed  in 
water,  and  thus  purified  from  the  pollution  contracted  by  touching 
a  dead  body.  Thus  he  connects/ro??i  with  purijied  instead  of  im- 
?nerse.  Why  then  did  he  not  see  that  an  ellipsis  could  connect 
up  with  a  verb  denoting  ascent,  and  dip  with  a  preposition  denot- 
ino-  descent?  The  same  solution  must  be  given  to  the  case 
alluded  to  by  him  in  2  Mace.  ch.  i.  v.  21,  where  airo^a'^Tc^  is 
translated  in  our  English  version,  draw  up.  In  this  case  /BocttIoj 
implies  that  a  vessel  was  to  be  dipped  into  the  water,  and  airo 
that  its  contents  were  then  to  be  removed  from  it  and  lifted  up. 
But  who  does  not  see  the  absurdity  of  the  idea  that  the  preposition 
up  can  denote  downward  motion  ?  Did  a  sane  man  ever  speak  of 
a  stone  as  sinking  up  to  the  bottom  of  a  lake,  or  of  immersing  a 
person  upwards  to  the  bottom  1  So  long,  then,  as  dip  means  to  im- 
merse, up  cannot  indicate  the  motion  denoted  by  it. 

A  similar  pregnant  construction  is  found  in  the  phrase  to  bury 
from  a  house,  denoting  to  carry  the  body  from  the  house,  and 
bury  it.  From  refers  to  the  verb  of  motion  implied.  So  in 
Greek,  Xfs  scpavri  iig  oSov,  literally  a  lion  appeared  into  the  path — 
that  is,  came  into  the  path  and  appeared.  All  who  have  read  ihe 
recent  results  of  German  grammarians,  know  how  decidedly  they 
refuse  to  connect  prepositions  with  verbs  whose  idea  of  motion  or 
of  rest,  does  not  correspond  with  the  sense  of  the  preposition, 
resorting  to  the  constructio  pregnans  to  escape  the  anomaly. 

In  the  words  of  Dr.  Carson,  "  I  cannot  pursue  this  subject  here, 
I  shall  merely  suggest  it  to  literary  men."  I  will,  however,  add, 
that  "  any  person  who  has  ever  passed  the  threshold  of  the  temple 
of  philology  must  know"  that  such  pregnant  constructions  are 
exceedingly  common,  and  those  who  have  not  studied  them 
enough  to  know  it,  I  would  refer  to  Winer's  and  Stuart's 
Grammars  of  the  New  Testament,  and  Kuhner's  Greek  Grammar. 


§  82.  DR.  carson's  first  mode  of  solution,  269 

Dr.  Carson,  in  view  of  such  criticisms,  had  no  excuse  for  taunt- 
inpr  me  or  any  one  else  with  "  schoolboy  criticism." 


"& 


§  82.     Dr.  Carson's  first  alleged  mode  of  solving  all  my  quotations 
from  the  Fathers. 

I  have  remarked  that  Dr.  Carson  has  adopted  two  unlike 
theories,  and  boldly  declared  that  each  will  solve  all  the  facts 
produced  by  me  from  the  Fathers.     I  will  now  state  the  first. 

This  is  advanced  in  endeavoring  to  explain  why  the  Fathers 
called  clinic  sprinkling  or  perfusion,  in  case  of  the  sick,  baptism. 
His  theory  is  this, — "Cyprian  calls  perfusion  the  ecclesiastical 
baptism,  as  distinguished  from  baptism  in  the  proper  sense  of  the 
term.  The  persons  perfused  in  their  beds  on  account  of  sickness 
were  not  supposed  to  be  properly  baptized  ;  but  they  received  the 
ecclesiastical  baptism,  that  is  what  the  church,  in  such  cases,  ad- 
mitted  as  a  valid  substitute  for  baptism.  This  fact  is  conclusive, 
and  will  afford  an  answer  to  all  the  passages  referred  to  by 
President  Beecher,  to  prove  a  secondary  meaning  in  the  use  of  the 
word  among  the  Fathers.  It  was  not  a  secondary  meaning  be- 
cause it  never  went  into  general  use  ;  but  it  is  called  a  baptism 
because  it  served  the  same  purpose." 

The  amount  of  this  is,  those  things  which  the  church  received 
as  valid  substitutes  for  immersion,  were  called  immersion  because 
they  served  the  same  purpose.  Now  admitting  this  to  be  true  in 
fact,  which  it  is  not,  how  far  would  it  apply  ?  How  many  valid 
substitutes  for  immersion  did  the  church  in  her  administration  of 
baptism  admit  ?  I  answer  one,  and  one  only,  and  that  is  perfu- 
sion or  sprinkling  in  case  of  sickness.  This  solution,  therefore, 
cannot  extend  beyond  the  case  of  clinic  baptism,  even  if  true. 
How  then  can  it  solve  all  my  examples  ?  How  can  it  meet  my 
argument  from  the  use  of  prepositions  ?  How  can  it  explain  the 
definitions  of  Basil,  Athanasius,  and  Zonaras  ?  How  can  it  ex- 
plain the  fact  that  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  and  the  sprinkling 
of  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  are  called  baptisms?     Did  the   primi- 


270  DR.  carson's  second  mode  of  solution.  §  83. 

live  church  sprinkle  with  blood  or  with  ashes,  and  deem  them 
valid  substitutes  for  immersion  ?  Did  they  regard  repentance  and 
tears  as  a  valid  substitute  for  immersion  ?  Did  they  regard 
purification  by  future  fire  as  a  valid  substitute  for  immersion  in 
this  world  ?  Did  they  regard  purification  by  the  truth,  or  by 
afflictions,  as  a  valid  substitute  for  immersion  ?  But  I  need  not 
proceed.  It  might  seem  as  if  Dr.  Carson  made  the  assertion  that 
this  theory  will  solve  all  facts,  merely  for  effect,  for  he  does  not 
try  to  solve  by  it  a  single  example  except  the  cases  of  clinic 
baptism,  and  to  none  others  can  it  even  in  pretence  be  applied. 
It  begins  with  them,  and  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case  it  ends 
with  them.  But  in  its  place  I  shall  show  that  the  theory  itself  is 
false.      I  proceed  to  the  second  theory. 

§  83.     Dr.  Carson^ s  second  mode  of  Solution. 

This  theory  is  taken  from  the  fact  that  Justin  Martyr  calls  cir- 
cumcision a  baptism.  Thus  speaks  Dr.  Carson.  "  He  some- 
times also  speaks  of  circumcision  as  a  baptism,  or  as  agreeing  in 
the  emblem,  though  altogether  different  in  the  things  and  in  the 
words  that  designate  them."  He  then  proceeds,  with  a  pompous 
hnplication  of  his  own  superior  knowledge  and  of  my  ignorance, 
thus  to  admonish  me.  "  Let  President  Beecher  study  this,  and  it 
will  show  how  the  Fathers  can  call  various  things  by  the  name 
of  baptism,  without  importing  that  they  are  included  in  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word.  All  his  examples  may  be  solved  by  this  single 
fact." 

Let  it  now  be  noticed  that  tiiis  theory  abandons  the  ground  of 
the  former  theory.  That  the  church  admits  a  thing  as  a  valid 
substitute  for  immersion  is  not  now  the  reason  why  it  is  called 
baptism,  but  the  fact  that  it  agrees  with  haptism  in  the  emblem. 
Hence  rites  never  used  by  the  church  and  not  admitted  as  a  sub- 
stitute for  baptism,  as,  for  example,  circumcision,  can  be  called 
baptism.     Let  us  examine  this  second  theory. 

What  then  does  Dr.  Carson  mean  by  agreeing  in  the  emblem  ? 


§  83.  DR.  carson's  second  mode  of  solution.  271 

According  to  authorized  usage,  an  emblem  is  a  visible  object  or 
act,  which  represents  another  thing  to  the  mind.  A  balance  is  an 
emblem  of  justice,  a  crown,  of  royalty,  white  robes,  of  moral 
purity,  sprinkling  or  washing  with  pure  water,  of  purification. 
Taking  the  term  in  this  sense  circumcision  does  not  agree  in  the 
emblem  with  immersion,  for  the  emblematical  acts  in  the  two  rites 
are  entirely  unlike.  So  is  the  act  of  immersion  in  water  entirely 
unlike  the  act  of  pouring,  or  of  sprinkling  with  blood,  or  water, 
or  ashes.  Taking  the  word  emblem  then  in  its  true  and  proper 
sense,  immersion  agrees  in  the  emblem  with  nothing  but  immer- 
sion.    It  is  perfectly  unique. 

But  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  Dr.  Carson  here  uses  the 
word  in  a  new  and  peculiar  sense,  i.  e.  to  denote  that  which  the 
emblem  represents.  He  does  not  indeed  so  define  the  word,  but 
although  it  is  possible  that  Dr.  Carson  has  written  what  is  so 
obviously  false  as  the  preceding  statements  would  imply,  taking 
the  word  emblem  in  its  proper  sense,  yet  it  is  not  probable,  and  on 
the  ground  of  so  strong  an  improbability  I  depart  from  the  pri- 
mary  sense  of  the  word,  and  introduce  a  secondary  sense.  On 
p.  465,  he  clearly  uses  the  word  in  the  same  sense,  speaking  of 
purification  as  "  the  emblem  of  the  ordinance,"  that  is,  "  the  thing 
emblematically  meant  by  the  ordinance."  On  p.  386,  he  seems 
also  to  use  the  word  in  this  sense,  stating  that  "  tlie  application  of 
water  under  the  law  and  under  the  gospel  has  the  same  emblem  of 
purification,"  that  is,  it  has  purification  in  each  case  as  the  thing 
emblematically  represented.  It  is  curious  enough  to  remark  that 
from  this  new  and  peculiar  use,  he  passes  in  the  next  sentence  to 
the  true  and  common  use,  speaking  of  a  burial  in  water  as  an 
emblem  of  Christ's  burial  as  well  as  of  purification.  Here 
emblem  denotes  the  emblematic  act,  and  not  the  thing  em- 
blematized. Let  this  change  of  sense  in  so  definite  and  well 
established  a  word  as  emblem,  teach  the  friends  of  Dr.  Carson 
the  great  ease  with  which  new  senses  of  words  are  introduced, 
and  the  strong  tendency  of  the  human  mind  to  introduce  them, 
and  that  the  same  word  can   be  used  in  different  and  even  anti- 


272  DR.  Carson's  second  mode  of  solution.  §  83. 

thetic  senses  in  the  same  page,  or  even  sentence — for  no 
senses  can  be  more  essentially  different  than  the  emblematical 
act,  and  the  thing  of  which  it  is  an  emblem. 

Taking  the  word  emblem  in  this  new  sense,  it  is  true  that  since 
both  circumcision  and  immersion  represent  purification,  they  so 
far  *'  agree  in  the  emblem,"  i.  e.*in  the  thing  emblematized.  In 
this  sense  also,  immersion  "  agrees  in  the  emblem"  with  sprink- 
ling, whether  with  water,  or  with  blood,  or  with  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer;  it  also  agrees  with  perfusion.  And  from  this  agreement 
in  the  thing  emblematized,  Dr.  Carson  infers  that  the  Fathers  can 
call  these  rites  baptisms  (i.  e.  immersions),  without  importing  that 
they  are  included  in  the  meaning  of  the  word,  just  as  circumci- 
sion is  called  a  baptism,  though  the  act  in  circumcision  differs 
from  the  act  in  baptism,  and  the  meaning  of  the  word  circumci- 
sion from  that  of  the  word  baptism.  He  calls  on  me  to  study  this 
fact,  and  asserts  that  it  alone  will  solve  all  my  examples. 

I  have  before  studied  the  fact,  and  have  since  studied  Dr. 
Carson's  doctrine  as  to  the  thing  emblematized  by  immersion,  and 
the  result  is  that.  Dr.  Carson  himself  being  judge,  this  fact  will 
solve  none  of  my  examples,  but  is  an  unanswerable  argument 
against  him.  For  according  to  Dr.  Carson's  own  views,  no  rite 
of  purification  which  omits  immersion,  can  so  far  agree  with  the 
rite  of  immersion  in  the  thing  emblematized,  as  to  justify  the  ap- 
plication to  it  of  the  name  immersion  ;  for, 

1.  Death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  are  an  essential  and  insepa- 
rable part  of  the  thing  emblematized  in  the  rite  of  immersion. 

2.  The  act  of  immersion  emblematizes  nothing  else  but  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection. 

3.  The  name  immersion  Avas  chosen  instead  of  purification,  in 
order  to  direct  the  mind  to  these  ideas. 

4.  Hence,  on  Dr.  Carson's  own  grounds,  it  is  absurd  to  trans- 
fer such  a  name  to  any  rite  which  excludes  immersion,  and,  of 
course,  all  which  immersion,  as  such,  symbolizes. 

That  these  are  Dr.  Carson's  views,  his  own  words  shall  prove, 
p.  475.     "  Though  the  rite  of  baptism  is  an  emblematical  purifi 


§  83.  DR.  Carson's  second  mode  of  solution.  273 

cation,  yet  purification  is  not  the  only  thing  represented  by  the 
emblem.  The  communion  of  the  believer  with  Christ,  in  his  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  and  his  salvation  by  that  union,  and  only 
by  that  union,  is  also  represented.  Katharismos,  then,  was  not 
suitable  as  the  appropriated  name  of  the  ordinance. ^^ 

Here  we  are  told  that  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  belong  to 
the  thing  emblematized  by  the  rite  of  immersion,  as  really  as 
purification.  He  then  tells  us  why  this  particular  name  of  the 
rite  was  very  important.  A  name  so  generic  as  purification 
could  not  represent  them.  The  specific  term  immersion  was 
needed.  Again,  p.  153,  "  Death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  we  do 
not  consider  as  the  primary  meaning  of  baptism  ;  and  washing 
away  sin  a  secondary  meaning.  It  takes  both  to  make  one  mean- 
ing.  It  not  only  signifies  washing  away  sin  through  faith  in  the 
blood  of  Christ,  but  denotes  that  such  sins  are  washed  away  by 
our  fellowship  with  him  in  his  death.  Washing  away  of  sin  is 
the  thing  which  it  always  signifies  ;  but  this  is  not  the  whole  of 
its  meaning.  It  is  then  to  no  purpose  that  Dr.  Wardlaw  insists 
that  sprinkling  and  pouring  may  be  an  emblem  of  cleansing. 
They  are  no  emblems  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  which 
are  figured  in  baptism." 

Hqjice,  the  ideas,  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  are  not  sepa- 
rable from  the  thing  emblematically  meant  in  baptism,  and  as  it 
regards  these  ideas,  no  rites  that  omit  immersion  "  agree  in  the 
emblem"  with  the  rite  that  includes  it. 

Again,  the  name  immersion  indicates  these  peculiar  ideas  alone, 
and  does  not  indicate  purification,  and  no  act  but  immersion  can 
designate  these  ideas.  P.  439  :  "  It  is  the  water  in  baptism  that 
denotes  purification,  not  the  name  of  the  rite.  Lnmersion  is  an  em- 
blem of  the  believer's  communion  and  oneness  with  Christ,  in  his 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection.  If  mere  purification  were  desig- 
nated  by  baptism,  sprinkling  or  pouring  might  have  been  used  as 
well  as  immerse.  But  immersion  represents  the  whole  spiritual 
body  of  Christ  as  dying  with  him,  buried  with  him,  risen  with 

12* 


274  DR.  carson's  second  mode  of  solution.  §  83. 

him.  As  members  of  the  body  of  Christ,  they  have  done  and 
suffered  whatever  Christ  has  done  and  suffered  for  them.  True 
views  of  the  import  of  baptism  are  essentially  connected  with 
clear  views  of  the  gospel." 

Nothing  can  more  clearly  set  forth  the  great  importance  of  the 
word  immersion,  and  also  of  that  which  is  emblematized  exclu- 
sively by  the  act  of  immersion.  The  omission  of  this  part  of  the 
emblem  throws  out  of  view  the  great  truths  of  the  gospel,  which 
it  symbolizes.  Of  course  this  part  of  the  emblem  is  absolutely 
essential. 

Hence,  p.  381,  he  says, — "  The  immersion  of  the  whole  body 
is  essential  to  baptism,  not  because  nothing  but  immersion  can  be 
an  emblem  of  purification,  but  because  immersion  is  the  thing 
commanded,  and  because  that,  without  immersion,  there  is  no  em- 
blem  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  which  are  in  the  emblem^ 
equally  with purijicati.on.^^  And  p.  388,  he  says:  "  Immersion  is 
commanded  because  of  its  symbolical  meaning,"  and  is  "  essen- 
tial." What  I  have  said  is  then  plainly  true,  viz.  according  to 
Dr.  Carson. 

1.  If  the  thing  emblematized  by  immersion  is  taken  as  a  whole, 
no  rite  that  omits  immersion,  does  or  can  agree  with  it  in  the  em- 
blem. Essential  parts  are  excluded,  viz.  death,  burial,  and  re- 
surrection. 

2.  These  excluded  parts,  according  to  Dr.  C,  are  not  separable 
from  the  thing  designed  to  be  emblematized.  They  belong  to  it 
as  essentially  as  does  purification. 

3.  The  name  immersion  was  chosen  and  given  with  the  special 
design  to  fix  the  mind  on  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  which 
purification  could  not  do. 

Immersion,  then,  if  Dr.  C.  is  right,  is  the  specific  name  of  a 
peculiar  kind  of  purification,  and  is  totally  unfit  to  be  used  like  a 
generic  name,  and  as  such  applied  to  any  and  every  rite  that 
symbolizes  purification,  and  that  alone. 

And  yet  the  facts  are  these,  that  the  Fathers  did  call  sprinkling 


§  83.  DR.  Carson's  second  mode  of  solution.  275 

with  blood,  or  water,  or  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  baptism.  That  they 
called  pouring  a  baptism,  and  that  they  called  circumcision  a 
baptism . 

My  solution  is  this  ;  baptism  has  the  sense  purification,  and  is 
a  generic  term,  and  includes  all  species  of  purification,  however 
unlike  in  form,  and  can  therefore  be  applied  to  them  all. 

Dr.  Carson's  is  this  ;  immersion  is  the  name  of  a  complex  rite 
of  purification,  in  which  the  water  is  the  only  emblem  of  purifi- 
cation, and  the  act  immersion  is  not  an  emblem  of  purification  at 
all,  but  of  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  and  was  chosen  for 
this  end,  and  yet  this  name  may  nevertheless  be  applied  to  all 
rites  of  purification,  although  they  exclude  immersion  and  all  the 
ideas  of  which  it  is  an  emblem. 

The  bare  statement  of  this  theory  is  enough  to  show  how  utterly 
absurd  it  is. 

According  to  my  solution,  we  apply  the  name  of  a  genus  to 
any  species  comprehended  in  it.  This  is  natural,  and  in  accor= 
dance  with  daily  use.  We  call  the  oak,  the  pine,  the  apple,  and 
the  orange  alike  trees. 

But  Dr.  Carson  transfers  the  name  which,  according  to  him, 
denotes  that  which  distinguishes  one  species  of  purification  from 
all  others,  to  all  the  species  contained  in  the  genus.  This  is  absurd. 
It  is  at  war  with  all  usage.  Ebony  is  a  peculiar  kind  of  tree. 
Would  it  not  be  absurd  to  apply  its  name  to  the  pine,  and  to  every 
other  species  of  trees,  although  entirely  devoid  of  its  peculiarities  ? 

Nay,  more,  as  it  regards  the  term  baptism,  the  case  is  much 
stronger.  Dr.  Carson  being  judge. 

Though  the  rite  of  immersion  is  a  kind  of  purification,  yet  it 
is  a  kind  so  peculiar,  that  it  needs  the  specific  name  immersion 
to  denote  its  peculiarity.  This  peculiarity  is  that  it  symbolizes  a 
purification  effected  by  union  with  Christ,  in  his  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection.  A  true  view  of  immersion  is  essentially  con- 
nected with  these  great  ideas.  For  this  reason,  the  act  immer- 
sion is  needed,  and  sprinkling  and  pouring  will  not  answer.  For 
the  same  reason  the  peculiar  and  specific  name  immersion   is 


276  DR.  carson's  self-contradiction.  §  84. 

needed,  and  was  chosen,  and  purification  will  not  answer.  And 
yet  this  name,  so  peculiar,  select,  specific,  and  distinctive,  can,  ac- 
cording to  Dr.  Carson,  be  applied  to  any  rite  whatever,  if  it  does 
but  symbolize  purification,  although  without  any  reference  to 
death,  burial,  or  resurrection.  We  might  far  more  rationally 
call  pine,  oak,  and  all  other  trees,  ebony.  To  such  absurd  shifts 
is  Dr.  Carson  driven,  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  baptism  has  the 
generic  sense  for  purification. 

§84.     Dr.  Carson's  Self -Contradiction. 

But  in  taking  this  ground.  Dr.  Carson  directly  contradicts  what 
he  elsewhere  asserts.  In  reply  to  Mr.  Hall  and  Dr.  Miller,  he 
asserts  that  rites  of  purification  which  exclude  immersion,  cannot 
be  called  baptism,  and  never  were. 

He  tells  Dr.  Miller,  on  p.  392,  that  "  sprinkling  cannot  be  call- 
ed baptism,  with  more  propriety  than  sand  can  be  called  water. 
This  I  do  not  leave  as  an  inference  from  my  doctrines.  I  wish  to 
proclaim  it  to  all  my  brethren." 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Hall,  he  ridicules  the  idea  that  sprinklings  were 
ever  called  baptisms.  Mr.  H.  humbly  supposed  that  the  practice 
of  a  people  who  called  a  purifying  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  a 
baptism,  would  have  some  little  weight  upon  the  question.  Dr. 
Carson  replies : 

"  A  people  who  called  a  purifying,  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  a 
baptism  !  !  !  Where  is  such  a  people  ?  Not  under  the  heavens. 
The  facts  alleged  to  prove  this  are  all  mere  assumptions."  p.  401. 
Again — "  If  one  instance  of  sprinkling  was  called  immersion,  I 
would  give  up  the  point  of  univocal  meaning."  p.  409.  Again, 
Mr.  Hall  alleges  that  Paul  calls  sprinklings  baptisms,  in  Heb.  ix. 
10.  Dr.  Carson  pointedly  contradicts  him,  charges  him  with 
deliberate  and  intentional  falsehood,  and  then  adds — 

"  The  subtlety  of  Satan  himself  cannot  plausibly  contrive  to 
force  these  sprinklings  into  the  divers  baptisms."  p.  405.  From 
such  positions  there  is  no  retreat. 


§  84.  DR.  Carson's  self-contradiction.  277 

And  yet,  when  I  bring  testimony  to  prove  that  the  Fathers  do 
call  sprinkling  with  water,  blood,  and  ashes,  baptisms,  and  that  in 
more  than  one  instance,  Dr.  Carson  does  not,  as  he  promises,  give 
up  the  point  of  univocal  meaning,  but  simply  turns  round  and 
contradicts  himself. 

Anything,  he  now  tells  us,  can  be  called  immersion,  if  it  agrees 
with  in  it  being  an  emblem  of  purification.  It  is  neither  absurd 
nor  contrary  to  fact.  Dr.  Carson  can  now  do  what  not  even  the 
subtlety  of  Satan  could  plausibly  effect.  He  does  it  with  perfect 
ease,  with  a  single  dash  of  his  pen — a  single  bold  assertion. 

And  it  is  not  a  little  curious,  and  perfectly  characteristic  of 
Dr.  Carson,  that  he  first  soundly  castigates  Dr.  Miller  and  Mr. 
Hall,  because  they  had  not  the  sense  to  see  that  sprinklings  could 
not,  by  any  possibility,  be  called  baptisms,  and  never  were,  and 
then  turns  round  and  castigates  me  for  not  having  the  sense  to  see 
that  they  could  be  called  baptisms,  with  perfect  ease,  and  that  the 
Fathers  did  so  call  them.  But  if  the  Fathers  did  so  call  them, 
why  could  not  Paul,  in  Heb.  ix.  10,  on  the  same  ground? 

It  was,  no  doubt,  very  convenient  for  Dr.  Carson,  as  emergencies 
arose,  to  resort  for  shelter  to  both  sides  of  a  contradiction.  And 
it  was  perfectly  in  character  for  him  to  castigate  others  for  not 
agreeing  with  him  on  both  sides.  But  to  a  controversialist  who 
so  often  insults  his  antagonists,  as  devoid  of  all  perspicacity,  and 
who  is  eulogized  as  the  Jonathan  Edwards  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, it  is  not  in  the  highest  degree  creditable  to  be  detected  in 
such  manifest  self-contradictions,  and  such  sorry  and  futile  eva- 
sions of  manifest  and  indisputable  truth. 

In  the  prt  sent  case,  Dr  Carson's  first  ground  was  correct.  If 
the  act  of  immersion  is  the  emblem,  not  of  purification,  but  of 
death,  burial,  and  resurrection  ;  if  the  word  immersion  was  chosen 
as  the  name  of  the  rite,  for  this  reason  ;  and  if,  for  the  same  reason, 
purification  was  not  suitable  to  be  the  appropriated  name  of  the 
rite,  and  if  what  immersion  denotes  is  essential  to  the  kind  of 
purification  emblematized  in  the  rite,  then  it  is  absurd  to  transfer 


278  DR.  carson's  self-contradiction.  §  84. 

ihe  significant,  specific,  and  appropriated  name  immersion,  to  any 
rites  of  purification  in  which  there  is  no. immersion. 

But  suppose  that  this  theory  could  explain  the  cases  quoted  by 
me,  in  which  sprinkling  is  called  baptism ;  what  has  it  to  do  with 
the  great  body  of  my  proofs  ?  Basil  defines  /Sa-TrrKrfj^a  as  meaning 
purification.  What  has  it  to  do  with  this  ?  This  definition  is 
enough  to  settle  the  question,  for  it  professedly  defines  the  word 
as  used  by  John  the  Baptist  and  Christ,  at  the  time  of  the  institu- 
tion of  the  rite.  Dr.  C.'s  theory  does  not  touch  this  case.  It 
does  not  touch  the  definition  of  Zonaras,  nor  the  assertion  of 
Athanasius,  nor  the  argument  from  the  use  of  prepositions,  nor 
the  testimony  of  Jerome,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Basil,  Cyril  of 
Alexandria,  and  Theodoret,  on  Is.  iv.  4,  nor  that  of  Chrysostom, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,. and  Theophylact,  on  Jn. 
iii.  25.  In  short,  if  true,  it  would  affect  only  a  i'ew  cases,  and 
leave  the  main  body  of  proofs  totally  untouched.  Could  Di\ 
Carson  have  believed  that  he  had  looked  intelligently  through  the 
subject,  when  he  called  on  me  to  study  it,  and  affirmed  that  his 
theory,  so  false,  and  withal  so  limited  in  its  application  if  true, 
could  solve  all  my  examples  ?  Or  did  he  make  so  bold  an  as- 
sertion merely  for  effect  on  the  minds  of  his  confiding  followers  ? 
Let  those  who  choose,  judge.  It  is  enough  for  me  to  unfold  the 
facts. 

But  while  both  of  Dr.  Carson's  theories  fail,  the  view  that  I  ad- 
vocate explains  all  facts,  including  the  one  adduced  by  him  from 
Justin  Martyr.  He  calls  circumcision  a  baptism.  It  is,  in  fact, 
a  purification,  and,  for  this  reason,  is  called  a  baptism.  So  Ma- 
carius  calls  it,  and  so  explains  it.  Comparing  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, he  says  of  the  latter,  "  the  heavenly  knife  cuts  off  the  su- 
perfluity of  the  mind,  that  is,  the  polluted  foreskin  of  sin.  With 
them  was  a  purification  {(Baitli(f^M)  sanctifying  the  flesh.  With 
us  a  purification  {fja^rtlK^ixa)  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  fire,  for  this 
John  proclaimed,  He  shall  purify  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
with  fire."  Gallandius,  Bibliolheca  Vet.  Pat.  Venice,  1765,  vol. 
7,  p.  147. 


§  85.  CLINIC    BAPTISM.  279 

Jerome  also,  commenting  on  Jer.  iv.  4,  "  Circumcise  yourselves 
to  the  Lord,  and  take  away  the  foreskins  of  your  heart,"  thus  ex- 
plains the  figure,  "  by  circumcision  he  represents  purification,  and 
by  foreskins,  sin." 


§  85.      Clinic  Baptisms, 

Dr.  Carson's  first  theory,  I  have  said,  is  not  only  insufficient,  if 
true,  but  it  is  also  false,  and  cannot  solve  the  only  cases  where  it 
could  be  applied,  if  true. 

His  theory  is  this  ;  Cyprian,  that  great  high  church  bishop, 
that  father  of  ecclesiastical  power,  when  he  calls  perfusion  an 
ecclesiastical  baptism,  does  not  regard  an  ecclesiastical  baptism  as 
a  real  and  proper  baptism,  but  only  as  an  ecclesiastical  substitute 
for  it,  so  that  the  antithesis  to  an  ecclesiastical  baptism  is  immer- 
sion. 

Both  of  Dr.  Carson's  replies  to  me  are  full  of  exclamations  at 
my  ignorance.  1  will  not  imitate  or  retort.  But  I  will  say,  that 
the  slightest  knowledge  of  ecclesiastical  history  would  have  taught 
Dr.  Carson  that  the  antithesis  of  an  ecclesiastical  baptism  was 
not  immersion,  but  a  heretical  baptism,  a  baptism  out  of  the 
church.  If  Dr.  Carson  knew  nothing  of  the  controversy  of 
Cyprian  and  the  eastern  bishops  with  pope  Stephen,  on  this  point, 
he  might,  at  least,  have  learnt  this  from  the  end  of  Cyprian's  own 
letter,  in  which  he  expressly  contrasts  a  clinic  baptism,  perform- 
ed in  the  church,  with  a  heretical  baptism,  performed  out  of  the 
church,  which  Stephen  regarded  as  valid,  but  Cyprian  as  a  nul- 
lity. If  such  baptisms  of  heretics  out  of  the  church  are  regard- 
ed as  valid,  and  clinic  baptisms  in  it  as  invalid,  then,  according 
to  Cyprian,  it  will  follow  "  that  those  who  out  of  the  church  are 
polluted  with  profane  water,  among  adversaries  and  antichrists, 
will  be  considered  as  baptized,  but  those  who  are  baptized  in  the 
church,  will  be  considered  as  having  obtained  less  forgiveness 
and  divine  grace  than  they,  and  the  heretics  will  be  so  much 
honored,  that  those    who   come    from  them    will    not   be  asked 


280  CLINIC    BAPTISM.  §  85. 

whether  they  have  been  immersed  or  sprinkled,  whether  they  are 
clinics  or  peripatetics,  but  among  us  the  integrity  of  the  faith  will 
be  injured,  and  the  proper  majesty  and  sanctity  of  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal baptism  be  diminished."  Cyprian,  then,  by  an  ecclesiastical 
baptism,  meant  a  purification  by  holy  water,  as  opposed  to  pollu- 
tion by  profane  water,  i.  e.  a  baptism  performed  in  the  church, 
and  by  the  church,  and  not  by  heretics.  He  meant,  from  the  ne- 
cessity of  the  case,  and  as  his  own  words  testify,  a  perfect  bap- 
tism of  the  highest  majesty  and  sanctity,  and  not  a  mere  apology 
and  substitute  for  baptism,  as  Dr.  Carson  supposes.  Thus  falls 
his  whole  theory. 

Equally  futile  is  Dr.  Carson's  effort  to  prove  that  "  Cyprian 
uses  the  word  baptize  in  the  sense  of  immersion,  in  reference  to 
the  ordinance  in  contradistinction  to  perfusion." 

"  He  argues,"  says  Dr.  C,  "  the  validity  of  perfusion,  from  the 
fact  that  the  persons  who  were  perfused  in  their  sickness,  were 
never  afterwards  baptized  or  immersed,  which  they  must  have 
been,  had  not  perfusion  been  accounted  valid,  in  such  cases.  If, 
as  he  reasons,  the  grace  usually  conferred  by  the  ordinance  has 
not  been  received  hy  perfusion,  let  them  be  baptized  or  immersed 
when  they  recover.  But  as  this  is  not  the  custom  of  the  church, 
why  do  they  object  ?  No  evidence  can  be  more  conclusive  than 
this.  This  Father  uses  the  word  in  its  proper  sense  of  immerse  in 
reference,  to  the  ordinance." 

Dr.  Carson  has  here,  I  charitably  hope  ignorantly  and  not  wil- 
fully, represented  Cyprian  as  commanding  what  he  in  fact  point- 
edly prohibits.  Cyprian  does  not  say,  let  them  be  baptized  when 
they  recover.  He  says,  let  them  not  be  so  deceived  as  to  be  bap- 
tized, if  they  recover.  He  says  this  on  the  supposition  that  some 
said  that  pardon  and  grace  were  not  conferred  by  perfusion,  and  ■ 
that  to  believe  this  and  act  on  it,  would  be  to  act  under  the  in- 
fluence of  a  delusion.  If  Dr.  Carson  so  stumbles  from  igno- 
rance, in  giving  the  sense  of  a  simple  Latin  sentence,  he  ought  to 
have  been  more  sparing  in  his  charges  of  want  of  perspicacity 
in  others. 


§  85.  CLINIC    BAPTISM.  281 

Equally  erroneous  is  Dr.  Carson's  assertion  that  Cyprian  here 
us.es  the  word  baptize  to  denote  immersion. 

He  uses  baptism  in  contradistinction  to  that  which  is  no  bap- 
tism, i.  e.  no  purification,  no  absolution,  but  a  nullity,  whether 
performed  by  immersion  or  sprinkling.  The  heretics  immersed 
as  well  as  the  church,  but  Cyprian  denied  that  they  could  give 
pardon  and  the  grace  of  God.  Hence  their  immersions  were  no 
baptisms,  i.  e.  no  purifications,  no  absolutions,  as  Ambrose  also 
said.  Pope  Stephen  called  those  who  baptized  heretics,  on  their 
conversion  to  the  church,  anabaptists.  In  reply  to  this,  Cyprian 
said,  "  Those  who  come  from  the  heretics  to  us  are  not  rehaptized, 
but  baptized.  For  they  receive  nothing  among  those  who  have 
nothing  to  give,"  i.  e.  they  are  not  baptized  at  all.  The  essen- 
tial item,  then,  in  a  valid  baptism,  was  the  fact  that  in  it  sins 
were  forgiven,  and  the  grace  of  God  conferred.  The  church,  and 
the  church  only,  has  power  to  do  this.  Heretics  have  no  such 
power ;  they  may  immerse,  they  cannot  baptize.  Hence,  if  a 
man  is  not  really  forgiven,  he  is  not  baptized,  even  if  immersed. 

Now  we  can  understand  the  force  of  his  reasoning  as  to 
clinics.  "  But  if  any  one  teaches  that  the  clinics  have  received 
nothjpg,  because  they  have  been  only  sprinkled  with  saving  water, 
but  that  they  are  empty  and  devoid  of  divine  grace,  let  them  not 
be  so  deceived  as  if  tbey  recover,  to  be  baptized." 

That  is,  let  them  not  be  so  deceived  as  to  admit  that  they  have 
not  received  forgiveness  and  grace  as  is  alleged,  and  of  course 
have  not  been  baptized  at  all,  and  on  this  ground  be  baptized,  that 
is,  receive  absolution  and  the  grace  of  God,  as  if  for  the  first  time. 
It  is  indeed  implied  that  immersion  would  be  resorted  to  as  the 
mode,  in  health,  but  this  is  involved  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  and 
not  in  the  word  baptized.  Cyprian  then  proceeds,  "  But  if  those 
who  have  been  once  sanctified  by  an  ecclesiastical  baptism  (that  is 
by  a  true  and  valid  absolution,  given  by  the  church  and  not  by 
heretics),  cannot  be  baptized  (since  it  would  involve  the  absurdity 
of  pardoning  one  already  pardoned),  why  are  they  troubled  as  it 
regards  their  own  faith,  and  the  forgiveness  received  from  God  ? 


282  DR.  carson's  insinuations.  §  86. 

Do  they  fear  that  although  they  have  received  the  grace  of  God 
they  have  received  it  in  less  proportion  ?  But  the  spirit  is  not  thus 
measured  out,  but  is  poured  out  wholly  on  the  believer." 

The  doctrine  of  Cyprian  then  was,  that  even  an  immersion  out 
of  the  church  was  no  baptism,  because  it  conferred  no  forgiveness 
and  no  grace,  but  a  sprinkling  in  the  church,  in  cases  of  neces- 
sity, was  a  true  and  valid  baptism,  because  it  conferred  forgive- 
ness, and  the  grace  of  God  in  full  measure.  Hence  Zonaras 
defines  baptism,  not  as  immersion,  but  as  the  remission  of  sins  by 
water  and  the  spirit.  That  is,  it  is  equivalent  to  xa^apjCjxo^  in  the 
sacrificial  sense.  Vain  then  are  Dr.  Carson's  theories  and 
assertions.  Nothing  has  been  said  by  him  which  weakens  at  all 
my  argument  in  §  52,  and  §  57,  on  the  subject  of  clinic  baptism, 
to  which  I  refer  the  reader  for  a  more  full  view  of  the  case. 

§  86.     Br.   Carson's  Insinuations. 

Dr.  Carson  insinuates  that  the  testimony  alleged  by  me  does 
not  decide  the  meaning  of  the  word  at  the  time  of  the  institution 
or  commencement  of  the  rite. 

"Nothing  alleged  by  Mr.  Beecher  at  all  affects  my  view  of  the 
testimony  of  the  Fathers  on  this  subject.  I  still  equally  admit 
that  testimony,  in  a  proper  view  of  the  subject.  It  is  their  testi- 
mony as  it  regards  the  meaning  of  the  word  at  the  time  of  the 
institution  or  commencement  of  the  rite."  He  then  more  than  in- 
sinuates that  I  had  not  discrimination  enough  to  know  the  im- 
portance of  this.  "  Mr.  Beecher's  confidence  is  an  additional 
proof  of  his  want  of  discrimination.  He  ought  to  perceive  that 
the  Fathers  might  prove  a  secondary  meaning,  while  at  the  same 
time,  they  prove  that  in  reference  to  the  original  institution  the 
word  is  used  in  its  primary  meaning." 

Let  now  the  reader  judge  of  Dr.  Carson's  candor  after  he  has 
noted  these  facts.  1.  The  Greek  Fathers,  Dr.  Carson  being 
judge,  could  not  but  understand  the  true  meaning  of  the  word 
/5a'n'7i^w  as  used  by  John  and  Christ,  and  as   recorded    in  the 


§  86.  DR.  Carson's  insinuations.  283 

Gospels.  Therefore,  what  they  declared  to  be  the  sense  is  the 
sense.  2.  John  says,  I  indeed  baptize  with  water,  but  he  shall 
baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.  3.  Basil  compares 
these  words  with  Is.  iv.  4,  in  the  Septuagint,  and  declares  ^aitli^u) 
to  be  synonymous  with  the  words  there  denoting  to  purify.  He 
then  from  these  premises  dra,ws  out  a  formal  definition  of  (3a'n'licfpM, 
as  used  by  Christ  and  John,  as  meaning  purification.  4.  Euse- 
bius  of  Cesarea,  in  view  of  the  same  facts,  gives  the  same  testi- 
mony. 5.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Origcn,  Jerome,  and  Theodoret 
coincide.  Does  not  this  prove  beyond  dispute,  Dr.  Carson  him- 
self being  judge,  what  John  and  Christ  meant  by  baptism  at  the 
time  of  its  institution  ?  Again.  6.  Athanasius  gives  the  words 
of  John  the  same  sense.  7.  I  proved  that  John  the  evangelist 
uses  xa&api(fix6g  as  a  synonyme  of  fSairlKjixos  by  an  appeal  to 
Theophylact,  Chrysostom,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  and  Cyril  of  Alex- 
andria ;  does  not  this  prove  how  John  the  evangelist  understood 
the  word  ?  8.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  contrasts  baptism  witii  the 
ashes  of  a  heifer,  with  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  spoken  of 
by  John ;  is  it  not  then  plain  that  in  reading  the  New  Testament 
he  regarded  the  words  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  meaning 
purification  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  9.  Theophylact  regards  the 
meaning  of  /Sa'Trli'Jw  in  Luke  xi.  38,  as  I  do  ;  does  not  this  prove 
what  was  the  usus  loquendi  of  Luke  ?  But  I  forbear.  If  all  of 
Dr.  Carson's  conduct  were  not  equally  strange,  I  should  wonder 
that  he  dared  even  to  insinuate  that  my  evidence  does  not  prove 
the  meaning  of  the  word  at  the  time  of  establishing  the  ordinance, 
and  much  more,  to  assert  that  I  had  not  discrimination  enough  to 
know  that  it  was  necessary.  Testimony  more  directly  to  this 
point  cannot  be  conceived,  than  I  have  given.  I  have  thus 
noticed  all  that  Dr.  Carson  had  said  by  way  of  theory,  assertion, 
or  insinuation,  to  break  the  force  of  my  argument.  The  intel- 
ligent will  easily  see  how  worse  than  vain  it  is.  I  will  next  con- 
sider  his  own  attempt  to  argue  from  the  Fathers. 


CHAPTER    n. 

DR.      CARSOn's     argument     FROM      THE      FATHERS. 

After  so  many  assertions  that  the  Fathers  never  use  baptize 
in  the  sense  to  purify,  but  always  in  the  sense  to  immerse,  one 
would  expect  an  overwhelming  display  of  evidence  from  Dr. 
Carson.  We  can  easily  conceive  of  evidence  that  would  settle 
the  question.  If  one  Greek  Father  had  said,  when  the  question 
of  the  validity  of  baptism  by  perfusion  was  up,  "  the  word 
baptism  means  immersion  and  nothing  else — the  idea  of  immersion 
by  sprinkling  is  absurd,"  then  he  would  have  taken  Dr.  Carson's 
ground.  And  if  the  Greek  Fathers  so  believed,  would  they  not 
have  said  so  ?  Did  not  the  occasion  call  for  it  ?  Has  Dr. 
Carson  been  able  to  find  one  such  passage  ?  Has  he  found  a 
single  definhion  of  the  word  by  a  Greek  Father,  excluding  the 
idea  of  purification,  and  declaring  immersion  the  only  sense  ?  In 
vain  has  Dr.  Carson  searched  for  any  such  thing.  After  long 
and  thorough  search,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  express  my  full  belief 
that  nothing  of  the  kind  can  be  found.  Why  should  it  be  ? 
Have  not  the  Greek  Fathers  testified  directly  to  the  contrary  ?  I 
have  experienced  no  difficulty  in  finding  definitions  expressly  to 
my  purpose.  I  could  not  ask  for  anything  more  explicit.  Dr. 
Carson,  then,  has  produced  no  evidence  of  the  kind  we  ought  to 
expect  if  his  view  is  correct. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  whole  of  what  he  has  produced,  or 
rather  referred  to,  does  not  prove  anything  that  I  ever  denied. 
It  rather  confirms  what  I  not  only  admit  but  have  ofttimes  clearly 
asserted.  If  he  had  carefully  read  what  I  had  stated  in  my  second 
part  he  would  have  seen  that  the  greater  part  of  his  proofs,  so 
called,  have  no  logical  bearing  whatever  on  the  question  at  issue. 


§  87.  POINT    AT    ISSUE.  285 

For  the  sake  of  greater  clearness  I  will  again  state  the  point  at 
issue. 


§    87.     Point  at  Issue. 

1.  It  is  not  whether  (Sa-n'TiJcd  has  sometimes,  or  often,  the  sense 
to  immerse.     This  I  admit  and  affirm. 

2.  It  is  not  whether  the  Fathers  do  not  sometimes  use  it  in  this 
sense,  both  literally  and  figuratively.  In  §  10  I  have  quoted 
from  Chrysostom  such  figurative  phrases  as  immersed  in  cares, 
immersed  in  sins,  immersed  in  waves  of  trouble  ;  in  which,  he 
uses  baptize  to  denote  immersion.  To  prove  this  does  not  dis- 
prove the  sense  to  purify, 

3.  It  is  not  whether  the  Fathers,  except  in  cases  of  necessity, 
immersed,  and  regarded  immersion  as  significant.  I  have  con- 
ceded and  affirmed  it.  But  I  deny  that  their  philology  can  be 
inferred  from  their  practice.  Under  a  command  to  purify,  they 
might  for  local  reasons  see  fit  to  immerse.  I  have  shown  that 
they  did,  and  what  the  reasons  were,  in  §§  22  and  23,  to  which 
I  refer  the  reader. 

4.  It  is  not  whether  in  speaking  of  trine  immersion,  and  in 
analogous  cases,  they  do  not  sometimes  use  ^a-xli^u  to  denote  the 
acts  of  immersion  which  are  involved  in  the  rite  of  purification. 
This  I  have  admitted  and  affirmed,  long  before  Dr.  Carson  ever  re- 
ferred to  such  cases.  But  from  it  I  derived  by  appeal  to  Zonaras 
and  Balsamon,  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  for  the  truth  of  my 
views,  for  they  regard  this  use  of  (Bantri^t^  as  so  unusual  in  con- 
nexion with  the  rite,  that  it  became  necessary  for  them  to  state  in  a 
note  that  in  that  case  it  meant  immerse,  plainly  implying  that  in  its 
common  religious  use  it  did  not  so  mean.  See  §§  28,  4,  and  64, 
where  the  principles  of  the  case  are  fully  considered. 

5.  It  is  not  whether  there  may  not  be  in  the  Fathers  cases  of 
what  on  our  principles  of  interpretation  would  be  inconsistent  use. 
We  do  not  allow  that  a  word  can,  in  the  same  place,  have  two 
meanings.     The  Fathers  were  not  tied  by  any  such  rules,  and  in 


286  POINT   AT   ISSUE.  §  87. 

their  rhetorical  paintings  and  amplifications,  they  sometimes  try- 
to  get  out  of  a  word  all  the  meaning  they  can.  So  Chrysostom 
in  two  places  assigns  to  the  word  both  senses.      See  §  64. 

6.  It  is  not  whether  cases  of  real  inconsistent  use  may  not  be 
found  in  writers  so  many  and  so  various.  I  do  not  admit  that 
such  cases  exist,  but  I  have  said,  if  they  do,  it  cannot  disprove  my 
argument.      See  §§  21,  27,  and  64. 

7.  The  point  at  issue  is  this,  do  not  the  Fathers  directly  de- 
clare that  /SaTflj^w  has  the  meaning  to  purify  in  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  and  does  not  a  large  class  of  facts  clearly  and  irresistibly 
sustain  this  assertion  ? 

I  affirm  that  it  is  so,  and  have  adduced  proofs.  Has  Dr.  Carson 
fairly  met  them,  and  shown  that  they  do  not  prove  the  point  ?  No. 
Nor,  as  I  believe,  can  it  be  done  by  any  one. 

If  now  it  could  even  be  proved  that  other  Fathers  do  in  some 
cases  interpret  /3a'7r7j^co  in  the  ordinance  as  meaning  to  immerse, 
what  would  be  the  result  ?  Plainly  this,  that  inasmuch  as  the 
word  /Sa-rT/^w  has  both  senses,  the  great  majority  of  the  Fathers 
interpret  it  in  the  ordinance  in  the  sense  to  purify,  and  one  or  two 
occasionally  in  the  sense  to  immerse.  This  is  the  utmost  point 
that  proof  could  reach,  as  facts  are. 

But  the  whole  of  Dr.  Carson's  proofs  are  so  far  from  reaching 
this,  that  they  do  not  prove  anything  that  I  ever  denied,  or  even 
doubted.  But  yet  Dr.  Carson  has  so  much  confidence  in  them, 
as  to  speak  thus  of  them,  "  I  shall  submit  two  or  three  arguments 
that  I  hesitate  not  to  say  will  produce  conviction  on  the  mind  of 
every  unprejudiced  reader.  I  shall  rather  suggest  them  than 
urge  them."  These  arguments  be  it  remembered  are  to  prove 
"  that  the  Fathers  understood  the  word  as  immersion  in  reference 
to  the  institution  of  baptism."  This  he  tells  us  "  no  scholar  ever 
questioned."  Though  it  is  "totally  unsuitable  to  his  work  to 
prove  it  at  any  length,"  yet  he  will  submit  two  or  three  arguments 
which  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say  will  produce  conviction  on  the 
mind  of  every  unprejudiced  reader. 

If  Dr.  Carson  is  to  produce  but  two  or  three  arguments  he  will 


§  88.  ANALYSIS    OF    DR.    CARSON's    ASSERTIONS.  287 

of  course  produce  the  strongest.  What  are  they  ?  I  have  read 
all  that  he  has  said,  again  and  again,  and  I  candidly  profess  that  I 
cannot  tell.  He  has  not  stated  two  or  three  prominent  points, 
but  has  given  a  series  of  assertions  arranged  in  short  separate 
paragraphs  numbered  from  one  to  twelve.  These  are  followed  by 
eighteen  miscellaneous  assertions  as  to  the  usus  loquendi  of  the 
Fathers,  not  numbered  by  him,  and  illustrated  by  no  references  to 
volume  or  page,  and  arranged  without  system.  In  such  a  swamp 
of  assertions  I  have  in  vain  asked,  which  are  the  two  or  three 
arguments  which  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say  will  produce  convic- 
tion on  the  mind  of  every  unprejudiced  reader  ? 

But  I  will  apply  analysis  and  classification  to  this  chaotic 
mass,  and  see  what  is  the  worth  of  its  various  confused  elements. 

§   88.     Analysis  and  Classification  of  Dr.   Carson's  Assertions. 

I  begin  then  with  the  paragraphs  numbered  from  1  to  12.  Of 
these,  four  have  nothing  to  do,  not  even  in  the  remotest  degree,  with 
the  .question  at  issue.  I  refer  to  the  paragraphs  from  8  to  11,  in- 
clusive. Two  of  the  rest  profess  to  be  arguments  from  historical 
facts,  viz.  1  and  2.  Five  are  arguments,  so  called,  from 
Cyprian  and  Tertullian,  neither  of  them  Greek  Fathers,  viz. 
from  3  to  7  inclusive.  One  is  an  argument  from  the  Septuagint 
and  Josephus,  viz.  No.  12.  After  this  follow  the  eighteen  miscel- 
laneous assertions  as  to  certain  Latin  and  Greek  Fathers.  These 
I  shall  classify  in  their  place. 

Let  us  then  look  at  the  four  irrelevant  assertions.  No.  8.  *'  It 
appears  to  me  self-evident  that  Christ  would  not  appoint  a  rite 
without  appointing  the  way  of  its  observance."  What  has  this  to 
do  with  the  question,  what  did  the  Fathers  say  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  (Swjrli^ul  In  Dr.  Carson's  words  I  would  say,  "Must  I 
dignify  this  with  the  appellation  of  reasoning  ?"  Is  this  one  of  the 
two  or  three  arguments  on  which  Dr.  Carson  so  confidently  relies  ? 

No.  9.  "  If  the  word  signifies  to  purify,  and  if  all  may  purify 
ag  they  please,  then  all  the  mummery  of  superstition  is  a  fulfil- 


288  ANALYSIS    OF    DR.    CARSON's    ASSERTIONS.  §  88. 

ment  of  Christ's  command  in  the  performance  of  the  ordinance." 
What  has  this  to  do  with  settling  a  philological  question — a  ques- 
tion of  fact  as  to  the  usage  of  the  Fathers  ? 

No.  10.  "  If  the  word  denotes  purification  in  general,  then  we 
may  purify  with  fire,  or  sulphur,  or  salt,  or  oil,  or  anything  we 
please,  and  water  will  not  be  essential.  We  may  dispense  with 
water  as  well  as  the  mode."  Again  I  say,  what  has  this  to  do 
with  a  question  of  fact  ?  Suppose  that  the  Fathers  in  plain  terms 
assert  that  (Sam'Ti^o  means  to  purify,  and  so  use  it,  what  power  has 
such  an  argument  as  this  to  prove  the  contrary  ?  Besides  the 
argument  can  be  retorted.  If  the  word  means  immerse,  then  we 
can  immerse  in  oil,  or  wine,  or  vinegar,  or  milk,  or  dye,  or  mud, 
&c.  &c.  The  act  only  is  enjoined — not  purification — and  im- 
mersion, as  an  act,  does  not  imply  purification ;  it  may,  and  often 
does  pollute. 

No.  11.  "If  the  water  is  known  to  be  essential  from  the  practice 
recorded  in  the  Scripture,  this  will  not  serve  Mr.  Beecher.  He 
cannot  reason  on  this  principle.  According  to  his  principle  the 
first  Christians  might  choose  water  in  their  purification  ;  but  that 
others  were  not  bound  to  their  purification."  (I  am  not  responsi- 
ble for  the  word  that  which  I  have  underscored.  It  is  as  Dr. 
Carson  left  it.)  Again  I  say,  what  is  all  this  to  the  question  at 
issue  ?  Are  proofs  from  the  Fathers  so  scarce  that  the  little 
space  devoted  to  the  subject  Dr.  Carson  must  fill  up  with  such 
arguments  as  these  ?  As  we  have  nothing  in  any  of  these  para- 
graphs but  unproved  assertions,  it  is  enough  for  me  to  deny  them 
all-as  untrue,  which  I  do,  and  I  also  reject  them  as  not  to  the 
point  if  true.  Surely  Dr.  Carson  is  not  the  man  to  read  lessons 
to  others  on  discrimination,  perspicacity,  and  a  capacity  for  the 
philosophy  of  language. 

I  next  come  to  the  two  paragraphs  Nos.  1  and  2,  which  profess 
to  be  arguments  from  historical  facts.  The  facts  are,  1.  That 
the  Fathers  did  in  fact  immerse  except  in  cases  of  necessity.  2. 
That  the  question  did  come  up — Is  the  sprinkling,  or  perfusion  of 
clinics  valid  baptism.     On  these  statements  we  have  the  infer- 


§  88.  ANALYSIS  OF  DR.  CARSON's  ASSERTIONS.  289 

ence  that  neither  fact  could  have  existed  if  they  considered  any  pu- 
rification to  fulfil  the  word.  This  is  the  amount  of  Nos.  1  and  2. 
To  complete  this  view  the  17th  of  Dr.  Carson's  miscellaneous  asser- 
tions ought  to  be  added,  i.  e.  that  Cyprian  and  others  did  not  justify 
perfusion  in  the  case  of  Novatian,  on  the  ground  of  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  but  on  other  grounds.  Had  the  word  signified  purification 
without  respect  to  mode,  would  they  not  have  appealed  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  ?  This,  he  thinks,  is  proof  clear  as  demonstration  that 
they  understood  the  word  as  signifying  immersion.  To  the  first 
two  of  these  statements  and  inferences  I  have  already  given  a  deci- 
sive answer  ia  my  second  Part,  §§  22,  23.  There  I  have  shown 
that  the  early  prevalence  of  immersion  can  be  abundantly  ex- 
plained by  these  causes.  1.  Oriental  usages,  and  the  habits  of 
warmer  regions.  2.  A  false  interpretation  of  Rom.  vi.  2,  3,  and 
Col.  ii.  1,  2  ;  and  3.  A  very  early  habit  of  ascribing  magical 
virtue  to  external  forms.  These  causes  I  showed  to  be  amply 
sufficient  in  power  and  extent  to  account  for  the  prevalence  of 
immersion  under  a  command  to  purify.  Of  course  no  presump- 
tion exists  against  the  sense  I  claim.  In  a  generation  attaching 
magical  power  to  forms,  and  swayed  by  the  authority  of  prevail- 
ing present  usage,  the  proposal  to  sprinkle  or  perfuse  sick  persons, 
would  of  course  raise  the  inquiry,  can  real  absolution  and  the 
grace  of  God  be  obtained  in  a  way  of  applying  holy  water,  which 
is  by  no  means  so  thorough  as  immersion  ?  The  materializing 
and  formal  habits  of  the  age  would  of  course  raise  this  inquiry. 
And  I  have  shown  that  this  was  the  inquiry.  See  §  52.  The 
argument  from  not  appealing  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  can  be 
retorted  with  fatal  power.  If  the  command  was  understood  to  be 
to  immerse,  why  did  no  man  use  the  universal  and  all-compre- 
hending argument  of  modern  Baptists  ?  Why  did  no  man  say 
neither  sprinkling  nor  perfusion  is  baptism  ?  Nothing  but  immer- 
sion is  baptism.  You  cannot  immerse  by  sprinkling.  To 
sprinkle  or  perfuse  does  not  fulfil  the  command  in  any  sense. 
Can  you  find  a  modern  Baptist  book  of  which  this  argument  is 
not  the  soul  ?     How  is  it,  then,  that  there  is  not  a  lisp  of  it  in  a 

18 


-v90  ANALYSIS  OF  DR.  CAKSON's    ASSERTIONS.  §  88. 

solitary  Father  of  any  age  ?  The  reason  why  Cyprian  and 
others  did  not  appeal  to  the  word  purify  in  defence,  was,  that  to 
those  who  objected  to  sprinkling  on  the  ground  that  immersion 
was  a  more  thorough  purification,  and  alone  gave  full  grace  and 
pardon,  it  would  be  no  argument  to  say  that  the  command  was  to 
purify.  The  difficulty  to  be  met  was,  how  a  purification  so 
limited  and  deficient  in  thoroughness  could  give  full  remission 
and  grace.  That  this  was  the  difficulty  Cyprian's  letter  shows. 
He  proves  by  an  appeal  to  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  and  Num.  xix.  13, 
that  divinely  ordained  compendious  modes  like  these  used  in  the 
Old  Testament  were  sufficiently  thorough.  That  the  mind  was  not 
purified  like  the  body,  but  could  be  thoroughly  purified  even  if  it 
was  not  immersed  in  a  bath  or  pool ;  and  that  the  grace  of 
God  is  not  given  in  divided  measures  according  to  the  amount 
of  external  washing,  but  is  given  wholly  to  all  who  believe. 

That  Cyprian  and  those  who  thought  with  him,  did  not  appeal 
to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  is,  therefore,  no  argument  against  me. 
That  his  opponents  did  not  appeal  to  it,  that  no  opposer  of  clinic 
baptism  ever  appealed  to  it,  throws  the  ''  demonstration"  against 
Dr.  Carson  with  a  force  not  to  be  resisted. 

In  Nos.  3,  5,  and  6,  he  tells  us  that  Cyprian  considered 
perfusion  as  not  baptism  properly,  but  a  valid  substitute  for  it, 
and  on  this  ground  calls  it  ecclesiasfical  baptism,  as  opposed  to 
real  baptism ;  and  that  he  uses  baptize  in  the  sense  immerse,  as 
opposed  to  perfusion.  Out  of  this,  his  first  theory  of  solution 
springs.  The  falsehood  of  these  assertions,  and  the  ignorance 
which  they  involve  of  the  usus  loquendi  of  Cyprian  and  the  age,  1 
have  so  fully  exposed  in  §  85,  that  I  need  add  nothing  more. 

In  No.  4,  he  tells  us  that  Cyprian  calls  perfusion  an  abridgment 
or  compend  of  the  ordinance.  What  then  ?  Is  sprinkling  a 
compendious  mode  of  immersion  ?  How  can  that  which  anni- 
hilates  immersion,  so  that  not  even  a  shadow  of  it  remains,  be 
called  a  compend  of  it  ?  Immersion  is  indeed  the  most  full  and 
thorough  mode  of  purification,  and  sprinkling  is  another  mode  of 
purification  much  more  compendious,  but  it  is  not,  and  cannot  be, 


§  89.  ANALYSIS    OF  DR.  CARSOn's  ASSERTIONS.  291 

a  compendious  mode  of  immersion.  Dr.  Carson's  assertion, 
therefore,  is  a  decisive  argument  against  himself. 

In  No.  7,  he  refers  to  TertuUian's  mode  of  speaking  on  trine 
immersion.  Here  I  admit  that  tingo,  like  tSairrii^oj,  if  used  with 
numerals  in  reference  to  trine  immersion,  has  the  sense  immerse. 
This  usage  I  had  stated  and  explained  long  before  Dr.  Carson 
referred  to  it ;  and  shown  from  Zonaras  and  Balsamon  that  it  was 
such  a  deviation  from  common  use,  as  to  need  a  note  to  explain 
it.  The  practice  of  trine  immersion  was  a  human  invention,  and 
in  trying  to  illustrate  or  prove  it  from  the  word  of  God,  they  fell 
into  an  unusual  and  improper  use  of  language,  as  we  might 
expect.  This  Zonaras  and  Balsamon  explained  by  notes  ;  but 
the  most,  to  avoid  it,  resorted  to  xaradxjdig  and  ava^utfi?  as  uni vocal 
terms  and  not  liable  to  breed  confusion.'  See  §  28,  No.  4,  and  §  64. 

In  No.  12,  in  order  to  prove  the  usage  of  the  Fathers,  he  tells 
us  that  Josephus  and  the  Septuagint  do  not  use  (Saitrl^u^  to  denote 
purification  in  innumerable  cases  where  they  speak  of  rites  of 
purification.  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  Fathers  ?  Was 
Josephus  a  Christian  Father  ?  Were  the  authors  of  the  Septua- 
gint Christian  Fathers  ?  Again,  what  has  it  to  do  with  the  argu- 
ment if  these  were  Christian  Fathers  ?  It  is  mere  negative 
testimony.  They  might  use  xa^aPi'^w,  or  ^vm'ru,  or  wrro^^jirru,  or 
tf/x^^^^w,  or  a'jro(fixrj-)(_o},  or  a^/vi^w,  or  irXCvu,  or  sxttXi^vw,  and  omit 
^a'TT-ri^w,  and  yet  it  would  be  mere  negative  testimony.  One 
.single  assertion  of  Basil  that  /^a-TTTi^w  means  to  purify,  has  more 
weight  than  ten  thousand  such  omissions.  Yet  Dr.  Carson  relies 
on  such  evidence  as  perfect  demonstration. 

§  89.     Second  Class  of  Assertions. 

Dr.  Carson's  numbered  paragraphs  have  all  been  considered. 
Which  of  these  contains  the  two  or  three  arguments  sufficient  to 
convince  every  unprejudiced  reader,  I  will  not  attempt  to  say.  I 
will  only  say,  after  so  much  boasting  and  insult,  is  this  all  ? 

But  perhaps  his  two  or  three  arguments  may  be  picked  out  of 


292  ASSERTIONS  AS  TO  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  §  90. 

his  eighteen  unnumbered  miscellaneous  assertions  as  to  the 
Fathers,  which  follow  his  numbered  paragraphs.  I  will  then 
analyse  and  classify  these. 


CLASSIFICATION  OF  MISCELLANEOUS  ASSERTIONS   AS  TO  THE  FATHERS. 

It  is  proper  here  to  repeat  that  Dr.  Carson  has  not  referred  to 
the  page  of  one  passage  to  confirm  any  of  his  assertions. 

It  is  a  provoking  mode  of  controversy  to  make  assertions  con- 
cerning sentences  and  words  scattered  through  fifteen  or  twenty 
folio  volumes  of  Greek  and  Latin,  without  a  reference  to  volume, 
page,  or  treatise,  and  occasionally  to  say  in  triumph, — What  can 
be  more  decisive  ?  This  is  perfect  demonstration  !  Notwithstanding 
this  skulking  and  unfair  method  of  fighting,  I  have  succeeded  in 
tracking  Dr.  Carson  through  all  his  lurking-places,  and  shall 
proceed  to  show  that  his  assertions  are  false,  or  else  that  the  facts 
alleged  are  not  at  all  decisive  of  the  question  in  debate.  But 
perhaps  I  ought  to  say  in  excuse  of  Dr.  Carson,  that  he  probably 
did  not  know  where  many  of  the  passages  to  which  he  refers  were 
to  be  found.  He  does,  indeed,  give  evidence  of  having  read 
Justin  Martyr  ;  but  his  quotations  from  Origen,  Clemens  Alex- 
andrinus,  and  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  seem  to  have  been  taken  at 
second-hand  from  some  friend  of  Dr.  Gale's,  since  they  are  the 
same  which  Dr.  Wall  long  ago  replied  to,  as  coming  from  some 
Dutch  friend  of  Dr.  Gale.  The  references  to  Tertullian  an(t 
Chrysostom  seem  also  to  be  second-hand  references.  Justin 
Martyr  and  Cyprian  appear  to  have  been  somewhat  studied  by 
Dr.  Carson,  but  how  superficially,  may  be  inferred  from  what  I 
have  already  said  on  his  reasoning  from  them,  and  still  more,  from 
what  remains  to  be  said. 

§  90.     Assertions  as  to  Justin  Martyr. 

Many  of  Dr.  Carson's  assertions  relate  to  Justin  Martyr.  His 
testimony  is  of  great  importance.  He  lived  in  Palestine,  and 
wrote  about  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  John.     He 


§  90.  ASSERTIONS  AS  TO  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  293 

professes  to  give  in  his  apology  a  full  account  of  baptism,  and  in 
his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  the  Jew,  he  incidentally  speaks  of  it. 
From  this  dialogue  I  made  a  quotation  to  prove  that  the  word 
meant  to  purify.  To  this,  Dr.  Carson,  as  usual,  makes  no  reply. 
Instead  of  this,  he  accumulates  assertions.     These  relate — 

1.  To  Justin's  description  of  baptism  in  his  apology. 

2.  To  that  part  of  the  dialogue  with  Trypho,  the  Jew,  from 
which  I  made  my  quotation. 

3.  To  a  passage  relative  to  raising  the  head  of  the  axe,  by 
Elisha,  by  throwing  in  a  piece  of  wood. 

4.  To  an  alleged  neglect  of  Justin,  to  denote  purification  by 
any  word  that  signifies  baptism. 

With  regard  to  Justin's  description  of  baptism,  his  first  asser- 
tion is,  that  "  he  describes  the  performance  of  the  rite  as  an  immer- 
sion." This  is  not  so.  He  describes  it  as  a  washing.  His 
name  of  it  as  a  washing  is  derived  from  the  command.  Is.  i.  16. 
"  Wash  you,  make  you  clean."  This  he  regards  as  a  command 
to  baptize,  or  a  prediction  of  baptism,  as  I  shall  more  fully  show  in 
considering  his  dialogue  with  Trypiio,  the  Jew.  Moreover,  the 
word  lSairri^(A}  does  not  occur  in  the  whole  description,  nor  any 
word  that  means  to  immerse. 

Dr.  Carson  once  said  that  "  I  was  the  dupe  of  my  own  sophistry, 
and  that  a  sophistry  childishly  weak,"  because  to  decide  the 
meaning  of  /SacrTi'^w,  I  introduced,  as  a  part  of  a  cumulative 
argument,  some  passages  that  did  not  contain  the  word.  Yet 
here  he  is  doing  the  same  thing,  for,  as  I  have  said,  this  whole 
passage  does  not  contain  the  word,  orany  of  its  derivatives.  And 
yet  the  entire  .omission  of  this  word,  and  of  the  idea  to  immerse, 
from  a  professed  description  of  baptism,  is  a  fair  argument  on  my 
side,  for  the  idea  of  immersion,  if  as  essential  as  Dr.  C.  says,  would 
not  be  omitted,  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  passage  from  Avhich 
Dr.  Carson  can  draw  the  sliHitest  logical  inference  in  fiivor  of 
his  views. 

His  second  assertion  is,  that  Justin  regarded  immersion  as  em- 
blematical, and  therefore  essential  to  the  rite  in  its  proper  sense  ; 
this  he  infers  from  the  fact  that  Justin  savs  that  in  this  rite  thev 


294  ASSERTIONS  AS  TO  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  §  90. 

are  born  again.  Here  the  reference  is,  he  affirms,  "  to  their  being 
in  the  water,  and  coming  out  of  the  water."  This  is  not  cor- 
rect. Justin  does  not  give  this  explanation.  They  are  said  to  be 
born  again,  in  this  rite,  he  tells  us,  because  in  it,  by  intelligence 
and  choice  they  become  the  children  of  God — whereas  the  first 
birth  was  a  matter  of  necessity,  and  when  it  took  place,  they 
were  in  utter  ignorance,  and  after  it,  they  grew  up  in  sinful  ways. 
What  right  had  Dr.  Carson  to  crowd  his  crude  notions  upon  Jus- 
tin, contrary  to  his  own  clear  explanation  ? 

His  third  assertion  is,  that  Justin  declares  that  "  in  the  water 
they  have  remission  of  sins.  This  shows  that  to  be  in  the  water 
and  to  come  out  of  it  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  rite."  This  is  a 
mere  begging  of  the  question.  The  language  of  Justin  may  be 
just  as  well  translated  hy  water,  and  so  it  is  translated  by  Wall. 
Moreover,  this  agrees  with  the  modes  of  speaking  already  de- 
veloped, in  which  persons  are  said  to  be  baptized  by  water,  and 
not  in  it.  Baptism  by  fire,  by  water,  by  repentance,  by  tears,  by 
martyrdom,  are  of  common  occurrence,  and  denote  purification 
or  remission  of  sins  by  these  means.  Hence,  if,  as  we  ought,  we 
translate  the  passage,  ly  water  they  have  remission  of  sins.  Dr. 
Carson's  argument  vanishes  into  smoke. 

This  completes  the  refutation  of  Dr.  Carson's  argument  from 
Justin's  description  of  baptism.  I  am  the  more  particular  thus  to 
refute  Dr.  Carson's  assertions,  because  I  wish  to  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Justin,  the  earliest  writer  who  has  professedly  de- 
scribed baptism,  fixes  the  mind  solely  on  purification,  as  its  great 
idea,  and  says  nothing  of  burial  with  Christ,  or  resurrection  with 
him.  This  false  application  of  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12,  can- 
not be  found  in  him. 

In  a  spurious  work  ascribed  to  him,  entitled  Questions  to  the 
Orthodox,  composed  in  a  later  age,  that  false  interpretation  ap- 
pears.    But  in  the  genuine  works  of  Justin  nowhere. 

So  much  I  liave  said  for  the  truth's  sake — but  now  I  add,  that 
even  if  Justin  had  described  tlie  rite  as  in  fact  performed  by  im- 
mersion, and  regarded  the  mode  as  significant,  still  it  would  not 


§  90.  ASSERTIONS  AS  TO  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  295 

touch  the  question  of  philology,  for  as  I  have  often  said,  under  a 
command  to  purify,  they  might,  for  various  reasons,  purify  by  im- 
mersion, just  as  in  later  ages  they  clearly  did.  All  the  probabili- 
ty of  immersion  in  this  description  is  created  by  Justin's  asser- 
tion that  they  take  those  who  are  to  be  baptized  to  a  place  where 
there  is  water.  But  of  this  Dr.  Carson  here  says  nothing,  and  it 
is  of  no  force  in  settling  the  meaning  of  (Saitri^o),  even  if  it  ren- 
ders it  probable  that  immersion  was  practised. 

Let  us  pass  to  the  dialogue  with  Trypho,  the  Jew.  Dr.  Car- 
son's assertions  here  are  quite  remarkable.  He  grazes  on  the 
passage  quoted  by  me,  in  which  Justin  uses  /Sa-Trrji^w  to  denote 
purify — and  which  no  man  can  refute  ;  he  quotes  a  part  of  it,  he 
must  have  had  it  in  full  view,  he  had  read  my  argument  from  it, 
and  yet  he  passes  it  by — nor  is  this  all  ;  in  the  very  teeth  of  it  he 
dares  to  make  the  assertion  that  "  when  Justin  speaks  of  purifica- 
tion, he  never  employs  any  word  that  signifies  baptism,"  and  then 
asks,  "  If  the  word  had  this  signification  in  his  time,  why  did  he 
not  sometimes  use  it  in  that  sense  ?" 

I  now  ask  the  attention  of  all  candid  men  to  the  impregnable 
strength  of  the  passage  which  he  thus  suppresses,  MMiile  profess- 
ing to  seek  the  truth,  and  to  the  futility  of  all  that  he  alleges 
from  the  context  in  support  of  his  own  theory. 

Justin  says,  rebuking  the  Jews  for  their  confidence  in  external 
observances,  ujxsr^  s-tt/  tyj  (fapxi  [liya  (ppovsTrs,  "  ye  glory  in  the  flesh.'"' 
He  declares  that  they  needed  a  second  circumcision,  and  rebukes 
their  sabbatizing  and  eating  of  unleavened  bread,  while  full  of 
sin  ;  with  such  things  God  is  not  pleased.  He  then  enjoins  re- 
pentance and  a  new  life.  If  any  has  stolen,  let  him  cease  ;  if 
any  is  an  adulterer,  let  him  repent ;  if  any  man  has  impure  hands. 
"  let  him  wash,  and  he  is  clean." 

He  thus  comes  to  the  passage,  "Wash  you,  make  you  clean,"  in 
Isaiah  i.  16,  so  remarkable  for  the  frequent  references  made  to  it 
by  the  Fathers  as  a  prediction  or  command  of  baptism.  But  as 
he  is  rebuking  confidence  in  external  rites,  he  proceeds  to  declare 
that   the    washing    here    commanded    is    no   external   washing. 


296  ASSERTIONS  AS  TO  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  ^  90. 

"  Isaiah  did  not  send  you  to  the  hath,  there  to  wash  away  your 
murder  and  your  other  sins,  which  not  all  the  water  of  the  sea 
can  expiate  (xa&a.^lCai'),  hut  as  the  case  required,  he  referred  even 
of  old,  to  that  saving  washing  which  took  place  in  those  who  re- 
pent and  are  purified  (xa^a^i^o^xivoig),  not  by  the  blood  of  goats 
and  of  sheep,  nor  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  nor  by  offerings  of  the 
finest  flour,  but  by  faith,  through  (Sia)  the  blood  of  Christ,  and 
his  death,  who  died  for  this  end,  as  Isaiah  has  declared,  thus 
speaking."  He  then  quotes  the  whole  passage  from  the  10th 
verse  of  the  52d  of  Is.  in  the  Septuagint,  to  the  6th  of  the  54th, 
including  all  of  the  53d,  in  which  is  that  striking  prophetic  ac- 
count of  the  atoning  death  of  Christ,  and  in  which  he  is  spoken 
of  in  the  Hebrew,  as  justifying  many  by  his  knowledge,  and  in 
the  Septuagint  as  forming  or  creating  them  by  knowledge,  justi- 
fying the  righteous,  and  taking  away  sins. 

He  then  proceeds,  "  Therefore,  by  the  washing  of  repentance, 
and  of  the  knowledge  of  God,  which  was  provided  for  the  sins  of 
the  people  of  God,  as  Isaiah  proclaims,  we  have  believed,  and 
know  that  this  is  that  haytism,  i.  e.  purification,  which  he  fore- 
told, which  alone  can  purify  those  who  repent. 

Here  he  is,  avowedly  describing  an  inward  purification  by  re- 
pentance and  faith,  as  opposed  to  any  washing  in  a  bath,  or  any 
external  rite.  This  spiritual  purification  he  proceeds  to  contrast 
with  their  external  rites,  using  the  beautiful  figure  of  Jeremiah, 
"My  people  have  forsaken  mp,  the  fountain  of  living  waters,  and 
have  hewed  out  to  themselves  cisterns,  broken  cisterns,  that  can 
hold  no  water."  This,  says  he,  is  the  living  water,  but  the  cis- 
terns  which  ye  have  hewn  out  for  yourselves  are  broken,  and  can 
profit  you  nothing. 

Then  follows  the  passage  which  I  have  quoted,  and  called  un- 
answerable. 

t/  ^ap  o'cpsXoj  ixsivou  tou  /^a-jr^i'tfixaroj,  6  rv^v  Capxa  ^au  /xo'vov  to 
tfwjxa  (Dcn5^()\si  ;  Qa<KTl<i^y]TZ  tyiV  •>]^up(;7iv  a-Tro  6pyr,g  xal  d'rrh  -rXsov- 
s^iag,  dfto  cp&ovov,  dirh  y.t<fovg,  xai  iSov  to  dCJ^a  xoJapov  stfTiv. 

"  What  is  the  use  of  that  purification  which  purifies  the  flesh 


§  90.  ASSERTIONS  AS  TO  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  297 

and  the  body  alone  ?  Be  purified  as  to  your  soul,  from  anger 
and  from  covetousness,  from  envy  and  from  hatred,  and  lo !  your 
body  is  pure." 

Let  it  now  be  well  noted,  that  the  great  scope  of  the  passage  is 
to  expose  a  reliance  on  any  external  forms,  as  a  means  of  re- 
moving sin,  and  to  inculcate  the  necessity  of  inward  purification, 
by  repentance,  and  faith.  All  external  forms  of  purification,  by  a 
striking  metaphor,  he  calls  broken  cisterns,  which  can  profit 
nothing.  He  then  exposes  the  vanity  of  such  external  purifica- 
tion, as  purifying  the  flesh  and  the  body  alone.  He  then,  by 
^wrrri^u},  enjoins  the  inward  purification.  After  ^aifri^u,  and 
before  that  from  which  the  mind  is  to  be  purified,  he  uses  aito,  be 
purified  from  anger,  &c.  He  then,  by  way  of  antithesis,  declares 
the  effect  of  this  inward  purification  on  the  body,  lo,  your  body  is 
pure.  The  laws  of  antithesis  require  the  sense  of  ^aTrn'^w  to 
correspond  to  the  sense  of  xa^apo'v.  Be  purified  as  to  your  mind, 
and  your  body  is  pure.  If  the  verb  means  to  immerse,  it  ought 
to  read,  be  immersed  as  to  your  mind,  and  lo,  your  body  is  im- 
mersed. In  §  50,  I  clearly  unfolded  the  argument  from  this  pas- 
sage, and  declared  it  unanswerable,  and  it  is  so.  What  then 
does  Dr.  Carson  do?  As  I  have  said,  he  makes  no  effort  to  an- 
swer it,  but  in  the  full  blaze  of  its  light,  he  gropes  around  with 
closed  eyes,  to  feel  out  something  to  be  said  in  behalf  of  immer- 
sion. 

What  docs  he  say  ?  1.  "  He  (Justin)  speaks  of  baptism  as 
cleansing  the  flesh  and  the  body  only ;  this  shows  that  the  water 
was  applied  to  the  body  in  general."  If  it  were  so,  what  then  ? 
Cannot  water  be  applied  to  the  body  in  general,  in  other 
modes  besides  immersion  ?  Was  it  not  applied  to  the  body  in 
general,  in  clinic  perfusion  ?  But  it  does  not  imply  that  water 
was  applied  to  the  body  in  general.  It  docs  not  imply  water  at 
all.  Justin  had  just  contrasted  purification,  not  by  water,  but  by 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  with  puri- 
fication by  repentance  and  faith.  So  Cyril  of  Alexandria  con- 
trasted baptism  by  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  with  the  baptism  of  the 

18* 


298  ASSERTIOI>fS  AS  TO  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  §  90. 

Holy  Ghost.  One  uses  xadapl^u,  the  other  ^aitri^c^,  with  re- 
ference to  purification  by  sprinkling.  Is  it  not  proper  to  say  of 
sprinklings  by  blood  and  by  ashes,  that  they  cleanse  the  flesh  and 
the  body  alone  ?  and  does  this  imply  an  immersion  of  the  body 
in  blood  and  ashes  ?  To  illustrate  Is.  i.  16,  the  same  Cyril  too, 
refers  to  the  sprinklings  of  the  old  law.  Plainly,  then,  Justin 
had  no  thought  of  immersion  in  his  mind.  He  thought  only  of 
external  purification  by  any  rites  affecting  merely  tlie  flesh,  the 
body — as  contrasted  with  an  inward  purification  from  sin. 

But  again.  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  He  speaks  of  it  also  as  referring 
to  cisterns,  or  pits,  as  trenches  that  are  dug.  It  must  then  have 
been  an  immersion."  This  is  not  correct.  The  Hebrew  is,  ye 
have  hewn  out  cisterns.  The  Greek  admits,  and  therefore  de- 
mands, the  same  rendering.  Justin  therefore  refers  to  hewn  out 
cisterns,  that  are  broken,  and  can  hold  no  loater.  Does  this  imply 
immersion  1  It  is  a  figure  to  denote  the  unprofitableness  of  exter- 
nal rites  to  satisfy  the  spiritual  wants  of  the  mind.  True  inward 
purification  does  this.  Therefore  it  is  the  living  water.  Exter- 
nal purifications  cannot — therefore  they  are  broken  cisterns,  that 
can  hold  no  water.  Upon  such  a  straw  as  this  Dr.  Carson  seizes, 
to  keep  himself  from  drowning.  In  the  first  place,  the  real  bap- 
tism, of  which  Justin  is  speaking,  is  not  performed  in  water  at  all, 
and  has  no  reference  to  cisterns,  pits,  or  ditches.  In  the  second 
place,  the  metaphor  of  broken  cisterns  is  applied  as  much  to  ex- 
ternal purifications  by  blood  and  ashes,  as  to  those  by  water,  and 
implies  neither  sprinkling,  nor  immersion,  nor  any  other  mode,  but 
merely  unprofitableness. 

In  view,  then,  of  the  passage  totally  omitted  by  Dr.  Carson, 
and  shining  in  the  splendor  of  irrefutable  truth,  how  pitiful  do 
such  subterfuges  appear,  and  how  daring  Dr.  Carson's  assertion 
that  Justin  never  employs  any  word  that  signifies  baptism,  when 
he  speaks  of  purification.  To  convey  the  idea  of  purification, 
he  uses  (Sairri^u  itself;   and  does  not  this  signify  baptism  ? 

Dr.  Carson  once  said,  "  What  is  the  hardihood  of  men  who 
can  presume  to  allege  the  Fathers  on  the  other  side  ?" 


§  91.  DR.  CARSON 'S    DEMONSTRATION.  299 

It  certainly  required  no  common  hardihood  in  Dr.  Carson,  thus 
tosuppress,  and  then  to  contradict,  the  express  testimony  of  Justin. 

Dr.  Carson  next  argues  from  the  fact  that  Justin  calls  circum- 
cision a  baptism.  This  fact  I  have  fully  considered,  anjJ  retorted 
as  an  argument  against  Dr.  Carson.  He  then  affirms — "Justin 
speaks,  also,  of  certain  washings  prescribed  by  Moses,  as  bein^ 
baptisms.  Now,  purification  in  general  would  not  suit  this,  for 
every  purification  would  not  fulfil  the  injunction.'^  What  then? 
Does  this  prove  that  the  Mosaic  washings  in  question  are  not  puri- 
fications ?  Certainly  not,  for  they  are.  Why,  then,  may  they  not  be 
called  by  their  right  generic  name  ?  What  though  purifying  by 
blood  or  ashes  will  not  fulfil  a  command  to  wash  in  water  ?  Docs 
washing  in  water  therefore  cease  to  be  a  purification,  and  is  it 
wrong  to  call  all  washings  in  water  purifications?  I  would  say,  in  Dr. 
Carson's  words,  "  such  reasoning  is  to  me  a  perfect  astonishment." 

§  91.     Dr.    Carson'' s  De?nons{ ration. 

But  one  passage  now  ren)ains,  a  figure  taken  from  the  sinking 
of  the  axe,  and  in  that,  /Sa'TTTi'^w  clearly  and  undeniably  means  to 
immerse.  At  this  Dr.  Carson  greatly  glories.  He  says — "  It 
puts  Justin's  testimony  on  this  subject  beyond  controversy."  So 
it  does,  but  that  testimony  is  directly  against  Dr.  Carson,  and  for 
me.  Let  us  examine  it.  The  head  of  the  axe  sank  in  thr 
water. 

By  a  striking  figure  taken  from  it,  Justin  speaks  of  sinners  as 
immersed  in  the  heaviest  sins — (Ss^wn'-iffp.ivovs  rms  (Sa^vraraic: 
oniaprlffAs. 

This  is  but  anew  proof  of  the  truth  of  my  assertion  in  §  10, 
that  the  sense  to  immerse  is  not  transferred  to  the  mind  to  indi- 
cate the  effects  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  is,  purifi- 
cation, but  where  oppressive,  crushing,  painful,  or  injurious  in- 
fluences are  denoted,  it  is  so  transferred.  I  illustrated  it  by  pas- 
sages from  Chrysostom — fSeQa'rcrid^ivoi  (i.  c.  immersed)  in  cares, — 
in  the  heaviest  sins, — in  many  waves  of  troubles,  &c.     At  the 


300  DR.  CARSON^S  DEMONSTRATION.  §  9l. 

close  of  §  28,  No.  16,  I  repeated  the  same  ideas.  I  there  say  of 
the  figurative  use  of  the  idea  to  immerse,  common  usage  connects  it 
with  adjuncts  denoting  calamity  and  degradation,  and  never  puri- 
ty. Thus  we  say  immersed  in  luxury,  ease,  sins,  pollution,  indo- 
lence, sloth,  cares,  anxieties,  but  not  immersed  in  purity,  holiness, 
fortitude,  self-denial,  temperance,  industry.  Sinking  and  down- 
ward  motion  are  associated  with  moral  degradation — not  with 
moral  elevation.  So  in  this  case,  Dr.  Carson,  with  great  sim- 
plicity, asks,  "  Are  we  purified  by  sin  ?"  No,  certainly,  we  are 
immersed  in  it.  Dr.  Carson  also  furnishes  me  another  proof  from 
Origen,  another  from  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  and  still  another 
from  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  of  the  same  thing.  Origen,  he  tells 
us,  speaks  of  persons  totally  given  up  to  sin,  as  being  entirely  im- 
mersed, or  sunk  down  under  wickedness.  Gregory  compares 
men  involved  in  calamities,  to  men  sinking  in  water,  and  to  he 
drawn  out.  So  Clement  speaks  of  men  as  baptized  by  drunkenness 
into  sleep.  He  says,  "  All  languages  must  recognise  this  figure." 
Certainly,  it  is  an  immersion  into  a  drunken  sleep,  one  of  the  most 
degrading  and  polluting  things  conceivable.  Thus  all  their  tes- 
timony is  for  me.  I  am  under  great  obligations  to  Dr.  Carson. 
These  are  all  second  hand  quotations.  Dr.  Carson  quotes 
noth  ng  of  his  own  knowledge  from  Origen,  Gregory,  or 
Clement. 

But  let  us  return  to  the  sinners  immersed  in  sin,  like  the  head 
of  the  axe,  spoken  of  by  Justin.  Certainly  Dr.  Carson  does  not 
regardthis  immersion  in  sin,  as  the  rite  of  Christian  baptism,  nor 
is  it  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  a  state  of  degradation 
and  pollution,  out  of  which  they  must  be  elevated  and  lifted  up, 
.  And  how  is  this  to  be  done  ?  Is  it  not  by  reversing  the  immer- 
sion, and  thus  lifting  the  sinner  up  to  the  regions  of  holiness? 
And  what  does  this  ?  Justin  says  baptism.  Baptism,  then, 
does  not  immerse,  it  delivers  from  immersion.  So  Justin  express- 
ly says,  that  Christ  delivered  them  from  this  immersion  in  sin,  by 
being  crucified  for  them  upon  the  tree,  and  by  purifying  Ihem  by 
water  (5i'  uJaToj  a^v/cTaj).     This  use  of  purification,  by  water,  to 


^  91.  DR.  CARSON^S  DEMONSTRATION,  301 

reverse  immersion  in  sin,  deserves  particular  notice.  Justin  by 
it  explicitly  tells  us  that  as  the  axe  immersed  in  the  water, 
was  raised  by  wood,  so  the  sinner  immersed  in  sin,  is  raised  by 
purification,  that  is,  baptism. 

The  same  is  thus  stated  by  Ambrose.  "  Elisha  called  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord,  and  the  head  of  the  axe,  which  had  been  im- 
mersed, CAME  UP.  Behold  another  kind  of  baptism.  Where- 
fore ?  Because  every  man  before  his  purification  (ante  baptis- 
mum),  is  weighed  down  and  immersed  like  the  iron.  When  he 
has  been  purified  (ubi  baptizatus  fuerit),  he  is  not  like  iron,  but 
like  some  lighter  species  of  fruitful  wood,  he  7'iscs.''  Here,  be- 
yond all  doubt,  Ambrose  calls  the  rising  up  of  the  axe  a  kind  of 
baptism,  because  it  represents  the  rising  up  of  a  purified  sinner. 
But  immersion  represents,  not  his  baptism,  but  his  state  before 
his  baptism — his  degradation  in  sin. 

I  can  heartily  re-echo  Dr.  Carson's  own  words,  "  What  can  be 
more  decisive  than  this?"  But  decisive  of  what  ?  That  the 
idea  of  immersion  is  used  to  denote,  not  baptism,  but  degradation 
in  sin,  and  the  idea  purification,  i.  e.  baptism,  to  denote  elevation 
out  of  it.  /Sa-TTriJw,  then,  when  applied  to  the  rite  or  to  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit,  must  mean  to  purify.  Dr.  Carson's  ap- 
peal to  tiie  Fathers  Origen,  Gregory,  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus, 
I  have  thus  considered — they  testify  for  me.  If  anything  in  Dr. 
Carson  could  surprise  me,  it  would  be  that  he  should  produce 
such  passages,  as  if  they  proved  anything  in  his  favor,  or  anything 
that  T  ever  denied.  The  question  is  not,  does  the  word  /Sa-TrTi'^w 
ever  mean  immersion.  No  one  denies  it.  All  affirm  it.  I  had 
alread)'-  proved  it  abundantly  by  similar  passages.  If  any  wish, 
I  will  bring  more.  Thus  Cyril  of  Alexandria  says,  that  "  the 
earth  was  immersed  (/SsSa-TrTKrfji-svT])  in  the  darkness  of  ignorance, 
when  Christ  died."  But  in  no  cases  like  these  is  the  word 
used  with  any  reference  to  the  rite  of  baptism.  They  merely 
contain  figures  taken  from  the  act  of  immersion,  to  denote  a  con- 
dition of  calamity,  distress,  or  degradation.  The  original  of  the 
passage  from  Gregory  Thaumaturgus  may  be  found  in  Wall,  iii. 


302  ARGUMENT  FROM  TERTULLIAN  AND  CHRYSOSTOM.  §  92. 

112.  Dr.  Carson  does  not  quote  it,  nor  does  he  translate  it  so  as  to 
give  any  correct  idea  of  the  passage.  He  says,  "  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus  speaks  of  drawing  baptized  persons  up,  as  fish 
are  drawn  out  of  water  by  a  line."  Gregory  says  nothing  about 
drawing  fish  up  out  of  water,  and  he  has  no  reference,  as  might 
be  supposed  from  Dr.  Carson's  translation,  to  the  rite  of  baptism. 
He  is  speaking  of  a  person  as  '-stretching  out  his  hand  to  save 
othei's,  as  if  he  were  drawing  out,  with  a  rope,  men  immersed,"  i. 
e.  in  the  water  (aXXoij  o^sj/wv  yfi^o.  ^lacfwtfoiro  wtf'Trs^  ^aTrn^o^.svous 
dviix'S)ixsvos).  These  persons  are  no  more  spoken  of  as  baptized  in 
the  religious  sense,  than  men  immersed  in  sin  or  ignorance  are 
spoken  of  as  baptized  in  that  sense. 

§  92.     Argument  from  Tertullian  and  Chrysostom. 

Dr.  Carson  next  asserts  "  that  Tertullian  understood  immersion 
to  be  a  part  of  the  nature  of  the  rite,  is  evident  from  his  saying 
'that  in  baptism  we  die  through  a  likeness;'  there  is  no  death  in 
purification,  except  it  be  performed  by  immersion."  p.  491.  But 
this  throws  no  light  on  the  meaning  of  the  word,  but  only  proves 
that  the  rite  of  purification  was  at  the  time  of  Tertullian  ad- 
ministered by  immersion.  This  being  the  case,  he  states  truly 
the  matter  of  fact,  as  things  then  were,  "  that  in  purification,  they 
died  emblematically." 

But  I  have  clearly  shown  that  in  other  cases  he  applies  the 
word  baptism  to  all  kinds  of  purification,  including  sprinkling. 
This  proves  decisively  that  he  understood  the  word  baptism  to 
mean,  not  immersion,  but  purification. 

I  pass  to  Chrysostom.  Dr.  Carson  says,  Chrysostom  most  de- 
finitively shows  that  he  attached  this  meaning  to  the  word,  by 
coupling  it  with  the  word  sink,  and  making  the  action  designated 
by  both,  an  emblem  of  burial  and  resurrection.  "  To  he  baptized, 
and  to  sink  down,"  says  he,  "  then  to  rise,  is  a  symbol  of  the  going 
down  into  the  grave,  and  of  coming  up  from  it.  Here  he  not 
only  couples  baptizing  with  sinking  down,  but  makes  both  words 


§  92.  ARGUMENT  FROM  TERTULLIAN  AND  CHRYSOSTOM.  303 

as  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  designate  an  idea  which  is  an  em- 
blem of  going  down  into  the  grave.  He  not  only  uses  the  word 
in  the  sense  of  immersion,  but  in  that  sense  he  applies  it  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism.  No  evidence  can  be  more  decisive  than 
this." 

Dr.  Carson  then  seems  to  think  that  the  greatest  strength  of 
his  argument  lies  here.  Yet  I  had  by  anticipation  answered  this, 
and  all  similar  arguments,  long  ago.  In  §  27  and  in  §  28,  No.  4, 1 
clearly  stated  that  the  word  ^airrii^u)  is  sometimes  used  with  re- 
ference to  the  rite  of  baptism,  in  the  sense  to  immerse,  as  well  as 
in  the  sense  to  purify.  But  I  stated  that  these  two  senses  are  ap- 
plied to  the  rite  in  different  ways,  and  for  different  ends.  Taken 
in  the  sense  to  purify,  it  denotes  the  real  import  of  the  rite  as  a 
whole,  and  the  thing  enjoined,  and  is  used  in  the  sacrificial  and 
religious  sense.  Taken  in  the  sense  to  immerse,  it  fixes  the  mind 
on  a  physical  act,  whicli,  in  the  rite,  is  but  one  jjart  of  a  complex 
whole.  The  usage  in  trine  immersion  illustrates  this.  The 
phrase  tp»«  jSaTrTicr/xara.  fAj%  fAu/jcTEw^,  denotes  not  three  perfor- 
mances of  the  rite  of  purification,  but  three  acts  of  immersion, 
included  as  a  part  of  one  performance  of  the  rite. 

But  this  use  of  /So.'^rTi  Jw  to  denote  a  particular  act  in  baptism,  is 
an  exception  to  the  general  rule.  This  the  notes  of  Zonaras  and 
Balsamon  clearly  prove,  for  they  state  that  in  such  cases,  the  word 
denotes  immerse,  w^hich  is  a  perfect  demonstration  that  this  is  not 
its  common  meaning,  when  applied  to  the  rite.  In  the  passage 
now  under  consideration,  and  which  Dr.  C.  regards  as  his  main 
reliance,  Chrysostom  is  explaining  merely  the  import  o^  the  acts 
of  immersion  and  emersion,  as  parts  of  the  rite  of  purification,  and 
his  language  is  to  be  explained  on  the  same  principles  as  in  the 
case  of  trine  immersion. 

This  use  of  /^a-Trr/^w,  with  reference  to  baptism,  in  two  senses, 
need  not  surprise  any  one.  On  p.  442,  Dr.  Carson  tells  us  that 
*'  Bapto,  in  the  art  of  dyeing,  may  be  used  in  the  same  page  for 
dyeing  and  for  dipping.'^  Is  it  at  all  strange  then,  that  for  different 
purposes,  baptizo  should  be  used  on  the  same  page,  now  for  purifi- 


304  TRINE  IMMERSION.  §  93. 

cation,  then  for  immersion  ?  At  one  time,  with  reference  to  the 
rite  of  purifying,  as  a  whole  ;  at  another,  with  reference  to  an  act 
involved  in  it  ? 

But  the  pains  taken  to  introduce  and  use  xaratJutfi^  in  such 
cases,  instead  of  f2kitTi(i[}.a,  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  ambiguity,  as 
we'll  as  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  notes  to  explain  yGa-TrTKff^.a, 
when  used  in  the  sense  immersion,  establish  the  truth  of  my  views 
on  this  subject  beyond  all  question. 

Chrysostom  then  proves  nothing  against  me — nothing  that  I  ever 
denied.  He  does  not  prove  that  fSci'jt'rKf^a,  as  the  name  of  the 
rite,  viewed  as  a  whole,  does  not  mean  purification.  He  does  not 
prove  that  /SaTrrj^w  has  not  the  sense  to  purify  in  other  cases. 
He  merely  uses  ir  in  this  case,  to  denote  the  physical  act  of  im- 
mersion, as  a  part  of  the  complex  rite,  to  which  was  applied,  as  a 
whole,  the  name  purification.  And  the  fact  that  in  Rom.  vi. 
Chrysostom  saw  asserted  an  emblem  of  burial  and  resurrection, 
in  the  rite  of  baptism,  does  not  prove  at  all  that  the  name  of  the 
rite  denotes  immersion,  and  not  purification.  It  proves  that  Chry- 
sostom believed  that  under  a  command  to  purify,  immersion  was 
the  proper  mode,  and  that  it  was  significant  of  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection.  That  he  believed  all  this,  I  have  never  denied,  or 
even  called  in  question.  But  that  his  view  of  Rom.  vi.  was  in- 
correct, 1  have  both  asserted  and  proved. 

§  93.      Trine  Immersion. 

Dr.  Carson  next  proceeds  to  remark  on  the  subject  of  trine  im- 
mersion. Here  he  meets  the  fact  that  three  immersions  are 
called  one  Baptism.  '^  My  philosophy,'^  says  he,  "can  account 
for  this." 

This  implies  that  mine  cannot.  But  this  is  merely  bold  vaunt- 
ing, for  want  of  argument.  My  philosophy  gives  by  far  the  best 
account  of  it.  Which  is  most  likely,  that  the  Fathers  said,  three 
immersions  of  one  purification,  or  three  immersions  of  one  immer- 
sion ?     He  says  that  in  such  a  case,  the  words  one  baptism,  are 


§  94.  APPEAL  TO  JEROME.  305 

used  with  reference  to  the  rite  in  its  appropriated  sense.  They 
are'  indeed  used  for  the  performance  of  the  act  of  purification 
taken  as  a  whole,  as  is  plain  from  the  L.  Apostolical  Canon, 
where  jxyigrfj^  is  used  in  place  of  f3a'rrri(f^a,  for  the  purpose  of 
avoiding  the  verbal  ambiguity  involved  in  saying  three  baptisms 
of  one  baptism  ;  hence  they  say  three  immersions  of  one  initia- 
tion. But  the  most  general  mode  of  avoiding  this  verbal  ambi- 
guity proves  the  truth  of  my  'view.  It  was  to  introduce  the 
univocal  word,  xarat^utfic:,  to  denote  immersion,  and  to  retain 
/So.'TT-ja'fjLa  to  denote  the  initiation,  that  is,  the  purification  taken  as 
a  whole.  So  Theophylact  says,  "  as  purification  (/Sa-jrTJd'fxa)  by 
immersion  (^xaTa6v^su)g)  shows  forth  death,  so  by  emersion 
(ava(Jj(j'£wc:)  it  shows  forth  resurrection."  And  Photius,  using  the 
same  words  to  denote  immersions  and  emersions,  says  "  the  three 
immersions  and  emersions  of  purification  (<rou  jSccifT'Kf^a-ros)  sym- 
bolize death  and  resurrection."  This  resort  to  an  univocal  word 
to  denote  immersion,  clearly  indicates  a  purpose  to  leave  to 
/^(X'7frj(j'|jLa  the  undisputed  work  of  denoting  purification  as  its 
proper  and  usual  sense. 

§  94.     Appeal  to  Jerome. 

Last  of  all  Dr.  Carson  appeals  to  the  learned  Jerome.  "  Jerome," 
he  says,  "  translated  the  word  in  the  commission  by  intingo,  to 
dip  into,  which  shows  that  in  his  time  the  Greek  word  was  under- 
stood to  signify  immersion." 

How  to  explain  such  an  assertion  I  know  not.  Dr.  Carson  was 
certainly  able  to  read  the  Latin  of  Jerome's  translation.  Let  any 
one  who  can  read  Latin  turn  to  Jerome's  version,  and  he  will  find 
these  words,  as  a  translation  of  the  commission.  "  Euntes  ergo 
docete  omnes  gentes,  bapilzantes  eos  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  et 
spiritus  sancti."  Was  Dr.  Carson  then  entirely  ignorant  of  the 
facts  in  the  case  ?  No.  He  must  have  known  that  intingunt 
was  not  in  the  translation,  for  in  this  very  volume  he  speaks  of  it 
as  a  part  of  Jerome's  ex]posUion,  p.  292,  and  it  is  in  fact  a  part  of 


306  APPEAL  TO  JEROME.  §  94. 

a  comment  of  some  lensrth  on  the  commission.  After  translatinoj 
the  commission  as  above  stated,  Jerome  proceeds  to  explain  what 
was,  in  his  view,  the  practice  under  the  commission.  "  First,  they 
teach  all  nations,  then  they  immerse  those  who  are  taught,  in 
water."  He  then  states  the  reasons  of  this  mode  of  proceeding. 
This  gives  us  simply  Jerome's  view  of  the  practice  of  the  apostles, 
and  not  at  all  a  translation  of  the  word  baptize.  According  to  him, 
under  a  command  to  purify,  they  did  in  fact  immerse.  Dr. 
Carson's  assertion  that  Jerome  translates  the  word  in  the  com- 
mission by  intingo,  I  leave  for  his  friends  to  explain.  Had  he  not 
"  discrimination"  enough  to  distinguish  translation  from  comment  ? 
Perhaps  he  spoke  from  a  general  impression,  and  did  not  take 
pains  to  consult  the  translation  at  all.  Perhaps  he  had  forgotten 
what  he  once  knew  about  it.  However  this  may  be,  I  will  apply 
to  him  his  own  words,  "  This  is  a  strange  observation  for  a  man 
of  letters." 

I  have  now  finished  Dr.  Carson's  argument  from  the  Fathers. 
Let  all  candid  and  competent  judges  decide  whether  it  is  not,  as  I 
affirm,  entirely  aside  from  the  point  at  issue,  and  totally  devoid  of 
power  to  prove  Dr.  Carson's  position,  or  to  overthrow  mine.  But 
since  Dr.  Carson  has  brought  forward  Jerome  as  a  witness,  I  will 
allow  him  to  testify  to  his  real  opinion,  before  leaving  the  stand. 

_  He  translates  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  thus,  "  I  will  pour  out  (or 
sprinkle)  upon  you  clean  water."  In  his  comment  he  represents 
God  as  saying  concerning  the  Jews,  "  for  my  name  sake  I  spared, 
sanctified,  and  restored  them,  so  that  upon  tliose  who  believe  and 
are  converted  from  error,  I  might  pour  out  the  clean  water  of 
saving  baptism  (baptismi  salutaris)  and  cleanse  them  from  all 
their  abominations." 

In  this  passage  there  is  no  reference  direct  or  implied  to  im- 
mersion. God,  speaks  simply  of  sprinkling  or  pouring  clean 
water.  Jerome  calls  it  the  water  of  baptism.  What  can  he  pos- 
sibly mean  but  the  water  of  purification? 

On  Is.  lii.  15,  he  says,  "He  shall  sprinkle  many  nations  ;" 
and  thus  unfolds  the  import  of  it,  "  cleansing  them   in  his  own 


§  94.  APPEAL  TO  CYPRIAN.  307 

blood,  and  hy  baptism  consecrating  them  to  the  service  of  God." 
Jerome  certainly  could  not  extract  from  sprinkling  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion.    But  he  could  easily  derive  from  it  the  idea  purification. 

On  Is.  iv.  4,  he  says,  "  Observe  that  he  shall  wash  away  the 
rillh  of  the  daughters  of  Zion,  by  the  spirit  of  judgment,  and 
purge  away  the  blood  of  Jerusalem  by  the  spirit  of*  burning. 
Concerning  whicli  spirit  of  judgment  and  spirit  of  burning,  John 
the  Baptist  spoke  in  the  Gospel,  I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water, 
but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire. 
From  this  we  learn  that  man  can  bestow  nothing  but  water,  but 
God  bestows  the  Hoi)''  Spirit,  by  whom  filth  is  washed  aiuay,  and 
crimes  of  blood  are  purged  aivay.^'  Here  he  perfectly  agrees  with 
Basil  in  his  views  of  Is.  iv.  4,  and  in  giving  to  baptize  the  sense 
to  purify  and  purge,  in  the  New  Testament. 

Again  in  Ezek.  xvi.  9,  God  says  to  Jerusalem,  "  then  washed 
I  thee  with  water,  yea,  I  thoroughly  washed  away  thy  blood  from 
thee."  On  this  Jerome  thus  comments,  "  I  washed  tliee  in  the 
water  of  saving  baptism,"  concerning  which  baptism  Isaiah  speaks, 
saying,  "  when  the  Lord  shall  have  washed  away  the  filth  of  the 
daughters  of  Zion,  and  shall  have  purged  the  blood  of  Jerusalem 
from  the  midst  thereof,  by  the  spirit  of  judgment  and  the  spirit  of 
burning." 

Flere  Jerome  explicitly  calls  the  washing  by  the  spirit  of  judg- 
ment and  the  purging  by  the  spirit  of  burning,  of  which  Isaiah 
speaks,  a  baptism.  This  baptism  must  mean  a  moral  purifica- 
tion by  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  cannot  mean  an  immersion.  No 
wresting  of  language  can  force  on  it  that  sense. 

Again  when  Moses,  Lev..viii.,  washed  Aaron  and  his  sons  with 
water,  Jerome  sees  in  it  a  sacrament  of  baptism.  He  says,  "  even 
then  the  sacraments  of  baptism  symbolized  the  purification  of  the 
world."  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  immersion  in  this  case. 
Moses  speaks  simply  of  washing  Aaron  and  his  sons,  and  this 
Jerome  calls  a  sacrament  of  baptism,  that  is  of  purification. 

I  will  also  let  Cyprian  say  a  iew  words  more  before  he  is 
discharged. 


308  CAUSE  OF  DR.  CARSON's  DELUSION.  §  95- 

In  describing  the  baptism  of  heretics  in  a  passage  already- 
quoted,  he  thus  contrasts  it  with  that  of  the  church  :  "  illi  extra 
ecclesiam  poUuuntur,  hi  vero  in  ecclesia  hapiizaniur.^^  Those 
are  poUuled  out  of  the  church,  these  are  purified  in  the  church. 
Here  the  antithesis  shows  unanswerably  that  Cyprian  by  baptize 
understood  -to  purify. 

I  have  elsewhere  fully  shown  that  all  of  Dr.  Carson's  remain- 
ing witnesses  testify  against  him,  but  none  does  it  more  unanswer- 
ably than  the  learned  Jerome,  and  the  eloquent  Cyprian. 

The  truth  is,  and  I  now  do  not  hesitate  to  assert  it,  when  Dr. 
Carson  made  his  sweeping  assertions  that  the  Fathers  "  always 
without  exception  use  the  word  ((Saifri^oj)  for  immersion,"  he 
had  read  very  few  of  the  Fathers  with  any  degree  of  thorough- 
ness, and  was  totally  unqualified  to  make  such  an  assertion. 
And  when  I  adduced  passages  pointedly  exposing  the  falsehood 
of  this  assertion,  he  knew  not  on  what  ground  to  meet  them,  and 
therefore,  first,  boldly  asserted  that  they  could  all  be  explained  in 
one  way,  and  then  that  they  could  all  be  explained  in  another, 
and  a  different  way,  without  proving  either  assertion.  He  then 
tried,  for  the  most  part,  by  second-hand  quotations,  none  of  which 
can  endure  a  critical  scrutiny,  to  cover  up  his  defeat,  under  a 
show  of  defence. 

§  95.     Cause  of  Dr.  Carson's  Delusion,  and  notice  of  Dr.  Sears. 

No  doubt,  like  multitudes  of  others,  Dr.  C.  had  confounded  the 
philology  of  the  Fathers  with  their  practice,  and  because  they  did 
in  fact  immerse,  concluded  that  they  regarded  /Sa-Trrl^w  as  mean- 
ing to  immerse.  This  fallacy  runs  through  the  argument  of 
Prof.  Sears,  in  the  Christian  Review,  and  yet  it  is  wonderful  that 
a  passage  quoted  by  him  from  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  did  not  un- 
deceive  him. 

He  translates  a  passage  in  which  Cyril  speaks  of  a  man  as 
6  svi^uvwv  ^v  roTg  vSacfi  xal  /Da-so'Tj^o/xsvocr,  thus,  "  He  who  is  immersed 
in  water  and  baptized."     Is  it  not  plain  that  Cyril  did  not  mean 


§  95.  NOTICE   OF  DR.   SEARS.  309 

to  speak  of  a  man  as  immersed  in  water,  and  immersed  ?  Could 
he'  have  meant  anything  but  immersed  in  water  and  'purified  ? 
The  translation  of  sv^i^vwv  is  correct.  The  Latin  translator  ren- 
ders it  "  is  qui  mergitur,"  he  who  is  immersed.  Abraham  Booth 
renders  it,  "  he  who  is  plunged  in  water."  Liddell  and  Scott,  in 
their  lexicon  on  the  basis  of  Passow,  say  of  6uvo)  that  it  is  more 
fully  rendered  in  all  senses  by  subeo,  to  go  under.  Hence  sv^uvw 
is  to  go  into  and  under  the  water,  that  is,  as  correctly  translated 
by  Dr.  Sears,  to  be  immersed.  The  rest  of  the  passage  clearly 
exhibits  the  same  sense  to  purify  in  ^a-TTj^w.  The  whole  pas- 
sage is  this.  "  As  he  who  is  immersed  in  the  water,  and  purified, 
is  surrounded  by  the  waters  on  all  sides,  so  they  (i.  e.  the 
apostles)  were  completely  purified  {s^a.'Krid&riaav)  by  the  spirit. 
But  the  water  purifies  (/Sa'Tr'Tj^sj)  the  exterior,  but  the  spirit,  the 
soul  within,  and  that  incomprehensibly."  Here  the  water  in  the 
nominative  case  is  said  to  baptize.  It  is  proper  to  say  that  water 
purifies,  but  not  that  it  immerses.  So  the  spirit  is  said  to  baptize 
the  soul  within.  It  is  proper  to  say  that  the  spirit  purifies  the 
soul  within,  but  not  that  he  immerses  it.  Still  further  to  confirm 
this  view  Cyril  goes  on  to  compare  the  operation  of  the  spirit  to 
that  of  fire.  "  Fire  penetrates  and  pervades  iron  till  it  all  glows 
with  heat.  So  the  Holy  Spirit  penetrates  into  the  recesses  of  the 
soul."  He  does  not  represent  the  Holy  Spirit  as  immersing  the 
soul  in  anything,  but  as  pervading  and  purifying  it. 

I  have  before  shown  that  Basil  gave  in  his  remarks  on  Is.  iv. 
4,  a  three-fold  definition  of  /Sa-TrTKTfxa,  viz.  1-  Material  purifica- 
tion. 2-  Spiritual  purification  or  regeneration.  3.  Purification 
by  the  trial  by  fire  at  the  judgment  day. 

A  passage  from  his  work  De  SpirituSancto,  Cap.  15,  illustrates 
and  confirms  the  third  sense — ro  rou  crui-off  (Bam'Ticfixa  rrjv  iv  rfj  x^t(fsT 
(Joxi/xaCiav  "kiyuv,  ■kcl&ol  (py\(iiM  oLirodrdKag,  1.  Cor.  iii.  15.  "  Calling 
the  trial  (by  fire)  at  the  judgment,  the  baptism  of  fire,  as  says 
the  apostle."  The  passage  referred  to,  he,  in  common  with  other 
Fathers,  understood  as  teaching  purification,  and  thus  salvation, 
by  fire.     He  shall  be  saved,  yet  so  as  by  fire,  5ia.  irv^os.     Of  im- 


310  BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  §  96. 

mersion  Paul  says  nothing  in  the  whole  passage.  Hilarius  thus 
expresses  the  common  vieW  of  the  Fathers.  "  Per  ignem  purga- 
tus,Jiat  salvus.'^  Being  purified  by  fire  he  may  be  saved.  This 
is  the  baptism  of  fire.     It  is  purification  by  fire. 

§  96.     Baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

On  no  part  of  the  discussion  has  Dr.  Carson,  through  his  whole 
volume,  made  greater  efl?brts  than  on  the  sense  of  the  expression, 
so  often  used  in  the  New  Testament,  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  auro^  u,aa^  ^oLitrldsi  sv  'Trvsufxarj  oc^ioj.  .The  im- 
portance of  the  point  induces  me  to  give  it  another  separate  and 
prominent  notice,  even  at  some  hazard  of  repetition. 

Clearly  the  whole  discussion  on  this  point  turns  on  the  question, 
is  the  Holy  Spirit  spoken  of  as  a  person  M^ho  purifies,  or  as  an  in- 
fluence in  which  Christians  are  immersed  ?  and  this  depends  on  the 
rendering  of  the  preposition  sv.  If  we  render  it  by,  then  a  person 
may  be  denoted ;  thus,  he  shall  baptize  you  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  demands  purify  as  the  sense  of  baptism,  for  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  a  person,  does  not  immerse,  he  purifies.  On  the  other  hand,  if 
we  render  sv  by  in,  then  divine  influence  is  implied,  and  the  sense 
immerse  is  admissible,  though  even  then  it  is  not  necessary.  He 
shall  immerse  you  in  divine  influences,  may  be  the  sense.  Dr. 
Carson  insists  that  this  is  the  sense,  and  that  by  it  is  denoted  the 
abundance  of  the  gifts  or  influences  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  entire 
subjection  of  the  soul  to  tTiose  influences,  and  that  immersion  in 
water  is  a  symbol  of  these  things.  In  this  view  Dr.  Carson  is  not 
peculiar. 

Neander,  in  his  history  of  the  planting  of  the  church,  says, 
that  "  Submersion  is  a  symbol  of  the  immersion  of  the  whole  man 
in  the  spirit  of  a  new  life."  Wahl,  Schleusner,  Rosenmiiller,  and' 
Bloomfield,  are  also  of  opinion  that  the  sense  is,  copiously  to 
imbue  with  abundant  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  But  beyond  all  doubt 
this  view  must  be  erroneous.  Indeed  it  is  very  remarkable 
how    full    and    how    powerful    the    testimony    of  the  Fathers 


§  96.  BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY   SPIRIT.  311 

is  against  this  view.  In  Is.  iv.  4,  it  was  predicted  that  the 
Messiah  should  purify  (ixxada^i^u)  by  the  spirit  of  judgment 
(sv  crv6i;jxaTj  x^jtfswc:),  and  by  the  spirit  of  burning  (sv  'TrvsjjL/.arj 
xa.v(fsus).  Here  there  can  be  no  dispute  as  it  regards  the  causa- 
tive sense  of  sv. 

This  passage  the  Fathers  refer  to  with  great  frequency,  as  con- 
veying the  same  sense  as  the  passage  in  question,  he  shall 
baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  with  fire.  Basil  says  that 
both  passages  plainly  foretell  the  same  things  concerning  Christ. 
Eusebius  of  Csesarea  says  that  both  passages  "  coincide  in  sense 
to  a  remarkable  degree."  Origen,  Jerome,  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
and  Theodoret,  coincide  in  this  view. 

Origen,  in  Homil.  ii.  on  Jer.,  after  quoting  as  a  prophecy  Is. 
iv.  4,  "the  Lord  shall  purify  by  the  spirit  of  judgment,  and  the 
spirit  of  burning,"  thus  proceeds  :  "  Therefore,  Jesus  purifies  {^arr- 
<ri^£j)  by  the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire." 

After  explaining  his  view  that  two  classes  of  persons  are.  re- 
ferred to,  one  of  whom  is  purified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  other 
by  fire,  he  proceeds  to  say,  "  Blessed  is  he  who  is  purified  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  who  does  not  need  the  purification  resulting  from 
fire,"  fXT^  8so[KZ\iog  -roC  (SaifT'KfiJ.arog  tou  aito  ^v^og. 

Here  the  use  of  dito  occurs,  on  which  I  have  already  comment- 
ed. He  then  proceeds,  "  Thrice  miserable  is  he  who  needs 
to  be  purified  by  fire  (-^ufO-  Blessed  is  he  who  has  part  in  the 
first  resurrection,  who  has  preserved  the  purification  (to  (SairrKf- 
fjia)  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  To  speak  of  preserving  ^wn'/^/,  is  good 
sense;  to  speak  of  preserving  an  immersion,  is  absurd.  But  if  a 
man  lost  the  purification  conferred  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  falling 
into  moral  pollution,  then,  according  to  Origen,  he  was  to  be  puri- 
fied by  fire.  Concerning  such  a  one  he  speaks,  as  one  who 
needs  purification  (/Sa-TTTjCjULaToj),  and  comes  to  that  fire,  and  of 
the  fire  he  speaks,  as  trying  him,  and  finding  wood,  hry,  and  stub- 
ble, consuming  it,  and  thus  purifying  him.  Here  he  refers  to 
the  words  of  Paul  in  1  Cor.  iii.  13,  15,  and  regards  the  man  who 
is  thus  purifte4  as  saved  by  fire  ((Jia  cru^oV). 


312  BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  §  96. 

This  is  the  mode,  according  to  Origen,  in  which  Jesus  haptizes 
by  fire.  I  do  not  in  this  case  vouch  for  the  theology  of  Origen,  I 
quote  him  as  a  witness  to  the  sense  of  the  word  /b^a-rr/^w. 

Theodoret,  commenting  on  Is.  iv.  4,  "  He  shall  purify  by  the 
spirit  of  judgment,  and  by  the  spirit  of  burning,"  says, 

"  He  foretells  the  purification  (xa^a^rfjv),  by  the  washing  of  re- 
generation, and  he  declares  that  it  shall  be  effected  by  the  spirit 
of  judgment,  and  by  the  spirit  of  burning.  Since  as  gold  tiied  in 
ihejire,  is  rendered  pure,  so  he  who  is  thus  purified  (6V<rTj^o- 
fxsvog),  lays  aside  the  dross  of  sin.  This  the  blessed  John  the 
Baptist  proclaimed  in  the  words.  He  shall  baptize  you  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  fire."     What  can  be  more  explicit? 

Cyril  of  Alexandria  is  very  full  on  the  same  passage,  to  the  same 
effect,  and  he  says  expressly,  that,  by  the  spirit  of  burning,  grace 
given  in  the  rite  of  purification  (fSam'T'Kfix.aTi)  is  meant,  and  that  this 
grace  proceeds  from  the  Holy  Spirit.  For  we  have  not  been  pu- 
rifie.d  (/Ssfa'TrrjVias^a)  by  water  alone,  nor  by  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer  (for  sprinkling  purifies  the  flesh  alone,  as  says  the  blessed 
Paul),  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  by  divine  and  spiritual  fire, 
which  consumes  all  the  pollutions  of  wickedness  in  us,  and  purges 
out  the  pollution  of  sin." 

He  thus  fixes  the  sense  of  the  word  iSatrit^u,  as  applied  to  the 
Holy  Spirit,  in  two  ways,  by  identifying  it  in  sense  with  xaSa^i^u), 
in  Is.  iv.  4,  as  applied  to  him,  and  by  applying  the  word  to  a  puri- 
fication by  sprinkling  with  the  ashes  of  a  heifer. 

Jerome,  with  equal  explicitness,  says,  in  his  comment  on  Is.  iv. 
4,  that  John,  in  his  prophecy  that  Christ  should  baptize  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  fire,  referred  to  the  Spirit  of  Judgment,  and  the 
Spirit  of  burning,  in  this  passage,  by  which  we  learn  that  man 
can  give  water  alone,  but  that  God  gives  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom 
filth  is  washed  away,  and  crimes  of  blood  are  purged  away. 

Similar  testimony  could  be  derived  from  the  comments  of  the 
Fathers,  on  Mai.  i.  1-3.     But  it  is  needless. 

By  means  of  such  testimony,  the  controversy  as  to  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  settled  most  unanswerably,  and  for  ever. 


§  96.  BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  313 

Not  only  is  the  causative  sense  of  sv  thus  established  by  the  comments 
of  Eusebius  of  Cesarea,  and  other  Fathers,  on  Is.  iv.  4  ;  but  it  is  no 
less  clearly  established  by  1  Cor.  xii.  13,  sv  svi  'jfvsviia.Ti  yjixsTs  'rta.v. 
TSgiig  h  tfoj/xa  i^ait'rig&'nii^sv.  "  By  one  Spirit  we  have  all  been  bap- 
tized into  one  body."  In  all  of  the  context  of  this  passage,  the 
Spirit  is  represented  as  an  active,  intelligent  divine  person,  by 
whom  wisdom,  faith,  and  spiritual  gifts  are  given ;  and  ^v  and  Sta. 
are  interchanged  as  equivalent.  "  To  one  is  given,  by  (dia)  the 
Spirit,  the  word  of  wisdom ;  to  another,  gifts  of  healing,  by  (sv) 
the  same  Spirit.  All  these  things  worketh  that  one  and  the  self- 
same Spirit,  dividing  to  every  one  as  he  will."  After  this  comes 
the  assertion, — "By  one  Spirit  have  we  all  been  baptized  into  one 
body" — that  is,  of  necessity,  purified  and  thus  united  in  one  spiri- 
tual body,  not  immersed  into  one  body.  The  spirit  never  immerses 
externally,  and  internal  immersion  is  here  out  of  the  question,  for 
if  immersion  were  meant,  something  would  follow,  into  which  the 
mind  could  be  immersed,  as  spiritual  water,  or  spiritual  fire,  ac- 
cording to  the  conceptions  of  the  Fathers.  But  immersion  into  a 
body  is  absurd. 

But  I  do  not  rest  upon  this  one  passage  to  decide  the  translation  of 
iv.  The  numerous  testimonies  of  the  Fathers  as  to  the  same  point, 
already  adduced,  and  all  the  proofs  that  (SwTtTi^o)  means  to  purify, 
in  the  ordinance,  concentrate  upon  this  point,  and  establish  incon- 
trovertibly  the  rendering,  he  shall  baptize  you  withihe  Holy  Spirit. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  antithesis  requires  it.  John  did  not  mean 
to  set  forth  the  abundance  of  the  water  used  by  himself,  as  if 
water  was  scarce,  and  they  thirsty.  The  idea  is  ludicrous.  And 
yet,  if  the  second  member  of  the  antithesis  is  designed,  as  Dr. 
Carson  and  others  assert,  to  set  forth  the  abundance  of  the  gifts 
and  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  first  member  should  set 
forth  the  abundance  of  water,  conferred  by  John.  Thus  John 
should  be  represented  as  saying,  I  indeed  confer  upon  you,  in  your 
necessities,  abundant  supplies  of  water,  I  fill  and  imbue  you 
copiously  with  it,  but  he  shall  confer  upon  you  abundant  supplies 
of  divine  influences,  and  shall  fill  and  imbue  you  largely  with 

14 


314  BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  §  96. 

them.  Besides,  if  the  passage  is  thus  rendered,  the  very  pith  and 
point  of  it  is  lost,  that  is,  the  contrast  between  an  external  purifi- 
cation, of  no  saving  power,  and  one  that  is  internal  and  effectual, 
produced  by  the  Omnipotent  energy  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  That  this 
is  the  very  pith  and  point  of  the  passage,  is  plain  from  the  fact 
that  Basil  and  Eusebius  declare  that  to  baptize  by  the  Holy  Spirit 
and  fire,  is  entirely  equivalent  to  the  expression  in  Is.  iv.  4,  "  he 
shall  purify  by  the  Spirit  of  Judgment,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  burn- 
ing," also  from  the  fact  that  the  Fathers  see  in  the  words  "  he  shall 
purify  and  purge,"  Malachi  iii.  3,  a  prediction  of  baptism  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Athanasius  also  expressly  declares  that  to  baptize  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  is  to  purify,  and  he  does  not  at  all  refer  to  the  idea 
of  abundant  supplies  of  divine  influence. 

Hence,  when  on  p.  402,  Dr.  Carson  says,  that  "  the  baptism  of 
the  Spirit  refers  to  the  abundance  of  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,"  and 
on  p.  311,  "  that  it  de^iotes  excess,  and  nothing  but  excess,"  and 
tries  to  illustrate  it  by  such  cases  as  drunk  with  oil,  joy,  blood, 
&c.,  p.  310,  he  is  simply  following  his  own  imagination,  and 
arraying  himself  alike  against  the  clear  testimony  of  the  New 
Testament  and  the  Fathers. 

And  so  long  as  it  is  true  that  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  person  bap- 
tizes,  it  is  absurd  to  speak  of  being  immersed  into  him.  So  long 
also  will  my  assertion  "  that  there  is  no  similitude  between  the 
operations  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  immersion,"  hold  true.  Dr. 
Carson  asks,  "  Is  not  the  resemblance  in  the  effects  ?"  p.  493.  I 
answer  no.  The  efl^ects  of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  his 
work,  are  to  illuminate  and  to  purify.  The  efliects  of  immersion 
as  such  are  nothing  definite.  The  effects  of  immersion  in  dye,  are 
to  color,  in  filthy  water  to  pollute,  in  clean  water  to  purify.  If  we 
then  simply  say,  the  Holy  Spirit  immerses,  and  omit  all  mention 
of  that  into  which  he  immerses,  it  conveys  no  definite  idea  of  any 
effect  to  the  mind.  If  we  simply  say  that  he  purifies,  it  exactly 
describes  his  real  work. 

My  reply  therefore  to  Dr.  Carson's  lesson  in  rhetoric  needs  no 
chang^,     «  The  Holy  Spirit  illuminates  and  purifies.   Immersion 


^  96.  BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  316 

as  such,  does  neither.  It  signifies  mode,  and  nothing  else,  and  it 
may  pollute  as  well  as  purify.  For  this  reason  I  deny  the  pro- 
priety of  its  application  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  claim  the  sense  to 
purify,  for  this  is  his  glorious,  grand,  and  peculiar  work." 

At  the  same  time  I  freely  admit  that  if  sv  were  not  used  in  the 
causative  sense,  and  if  a  person  were  not  meant,  and  if  the  words 
Holy  Spirit  meant  merely  divine  fnfluences,  the  idea  of  abun- 
dance could  be  conveyed  by  the  phrase  immersion  in  divine 
influences ;  and  that  as  "  to  dip  the  foot  in  oil"  implies  plenty 
of  oil,  and  as  "  steeping  the  senses  in  forgetfulness,"  or  "  the 
soul  in  the  milk  of  human  nature,"  implies  an  entire  sub- 
jection of  the  senses  to  forgetfulness,  and  of  the  soul  to  the  spirit 
of  kindness,  so  immersion  in  divine  influences  might  denote,  not 
only  abundance  of  such  influences,  but  also  entire  subjection  to 
them  ;  and  that  the  general  use  of  the  idea  immersion  in  other 
cases  to  denote  degradation,  calamity,  dz;c.,  would  not  forbid. 
For  as  I  have  before  said,  I  freely  admit  the  truth  of  the  princi- 
ple that  to  justify  a  metaphor,  previous  use  is  not  necessary,  but 
only  resemblance.  But  in  the  cases  quoted  by  Dr.  Carson,  the 
words  steep,  dip,  &c.,  are  not  used  absolutely,  but  in  connexion 
with  something  in  which  the  dipping  and  steeping  take  place. 
Hence  if  Christians  are  said  absolutely  to  be  baptized  hy  the 
Holy  Spirit,  as  a  person,  or  the  Holy  Spirit  is  said  absolutely  to 
baptize  them,  or  to  baptize  the  mind,  without  reference  to  any- 
thing in  which  immersion  can  take  place,  as  is  the  case  in  the 
Scripture,  and  in  the  Fathers,  then  it  is  plain  that  Dr.  Carson's 
mode  of  solution  cannot  apply  to  such  cases,  and  is  of  no  possible 
avail  to  his  cause. 

And  although  I  admitted,  §  28,  No.  16,  that  it  would  be  pos- 
sible to  use  immersion  figuratively  to  denote  ideas  not  involving 
degradation  and  calamity,  yet  Dr.  Carson  has  failed  to  bring 
forward  any  such  cases,  and  the  general  use  is  as  I  have  stated, 
as  may  be  seen  by  his  own  examples  on  pp.  80,  81,  86. 

On  p.  311,  it  is  true  that  he  asserts  as  follows,  in  reply  to  a 
writer  in  the  Congregational  Magazine  (Prof.  J.  H.  Goodwin) : 


316  DR.  Carson's  candor.  §  97. 

"  All  the  instances  of  classical  usage  in  a  figurative  application 
do  not  confine  this  word  to  evil.  As  to  immersion,  hapto  and 
baptizo  are  the  same,  and  immersed  in  justice,  a  classical  phrase, 
is  not  an  immersion  in  evil." 

Yet  on  p.  52,  Dr.  Carson  says  of  this  very  case,  "  I  would  not 
explain  this  with  Dr.  Gale,  '  dipped  as  it  were  in,  or  swallowed 
up  with  justice.'  Justice  is  here  represented  as  a  coloring  liquid, 
which  imbues  the  person  dipped  in  it.  The  virtuous  man  is 
dipped  to  be  dyed  in  justice."  He  speaks  of  tincturing  thoughts  as 
a  similar  figure.  From  all  this  it  is  plain  that  the  sense  to  im- 
merse is  not  here  of  necessity  implied  at  all.  Tinctured  or  dyed, 
will  fully  express  the  sense,  and  Dr.  Carson  not  only  admits,  but 
strongly  asserts  that  bapto  often  denotes  to  dye,  without  respect  to 
mode.  After  all  his  efforts,  then.  Dr.  Carson  can  find  but  this 
one  case  to  oppose  to  my  assertion,  and  in  this  case  I  deny  the 
sense  of  immersion  entirely. 

§  97.     Dr.  Carson's  Candor. 

To  my  proof  that  what  he  called  "  metaphysical  nonsense," 
and  for  exceeding  which  he  oflTered  a  premium,  is  sound  sense,  and 
is  sustained  by  the  Fathers,  he  replies,  *'  I  find  nothing  like  it  in 
his  quotations ;  and  notwithstanding  the  modesty  of  the  President 
I  still  think  that  the  union  of  meanings  running  into  each  other,  is 
all  his  own."  p.  494. 

I  said  nothing  oiihe  union  of  meanings  running  into  each  other. 
What  Dr.  Carson  meant  by  the  union  of  such  meanings,  I  know 
not.  It  is  not  my  language.  It  is  his  own.  I  did  speak  of  analogi- 
cal senses,  as  running  into  each  other.  What  I  meant  I  have 
fully  explained. 

Dr.  Carson  says  he  can  see  nothing  like  it  in  my  quotations. 
This  may  be  true  as  a  fact,  and  yet  have  very  little  weight  as  an 
argument.  It  is  very  hard  for  some  men  to  see,  after  ridiculing 
and  sneering  at  an  opponent,  that  he  is  clearly  in  the  right,  and 
they  in  the  wrong. 


§  98.  DR.  Carson's  bad  spirit,  317 

His  remarks  as  to  the  sense  of  xXu^w  are  truly  painful,  so  far 
as  I  desire  to  respect  Dr.  Carson.  In  reviewing  my  translation 
of  itz^ixKxxiad&ai,  p.  445,  he  charges  me  with  "  criticising  from 
imagination,  and  not  from  a  knowledge  of  the  language,  and  with 
not  justifying  my  criticism  with  a  single  example."  I  at  once 
arrayed  many  examples  against  him,  and  also,  the  authority  of 
Stephens,  Scapula,  Damm,  Hedericus,  Ernesti,  Passow,  Schnei- 
der, and  all  lexicographers  of  any  note,  §  62.  I  also  said  that  his 
charge  was,  upon  the  face  of  it,  as  false  as  if  I  were  to  say  that  it 
is  criticising  from  imagination,  to  translate  i)(Jw^  water,  and  itZ^ 
fire.  I  also  declared  that  Dr.  Carson's  character  as  an  accurate 
scholar  could  not  long  survive  such  criticisms.  One  would  have 
supposed  that  Dr.  Carson  in  such  a  case  would  either  defend  him- 
self, by  confuting  me,  or  else  retract  his  charge.  No  such  thing. 
He  coolly  says,  "  the  characteristic  meaning  of  the  word  kluzo^  is 
exactly  what  I  have  represented,  and  all  the  examples  accord 
with  this."  p.  494. 

This,  no  doubt,  will  pass  current  with  the  majority  of  Dr. 
Carson's  readers,  and  with  others  who  have  never  read  my  ex- 
amples. But  if  any  man  desires  to  judge  of  the  candor  of  Dr. 
Carson,  to  say  noticing  of  conscience,  and  of  the  fear  of  God,  let 
him  turn  to  my  examples  in  §  62,  and  then  again  read  the  as- 
sertion which  I  have  just  quoted. 

Arguments  and  facts  of  the  clearest  kind,  are  of  no  use  in  deal- 
ing  with  a  man  who  will  thus  coolly  make  assertions  without 
proof,  directly  in  the  teeth  of  unanswerable  facts. 

§  98.     Dr.  Carson's  Bad  Spirit. 

My  censures  of  his  spirit,  Dr.  Carson  answers  by  a  denial  of 
writing  in  a  bad  spirit,  and  by  a  retort  of  the  charge  on  me.  p.  494. 

"  What  spirit  is  indicated  by  such  expressions  as  '  the  guise  of 
zeal  for  the  glory  of  God  V  '  Being  determined  not  to  admit  the 
truth,  he  did  the  only  thing  that  remained,  first  to  misrepresent, 


318  DR.  Carson's  bad  spirit.  §  98i 

and  then  to  deny  it?'  If  this  is  not  a  bad  spirit,  what  will 
indicate  a  bad  spirit  ?" 

To  say  such  things  without  reason,  would  indicate  a  bad  spirit. 
But  painful  facts  may  compel  an  honest  belief  of  such  charges.  I 
take  no  pleasure  in  saying  that  facts  have  compelled  me  to  this 
belief  concerning  Dr.  Carson.  I  do  not  question  his  piety  in  the 
main.  But  he  has  done  things  that  I  cannot  regard  as  honorable, 
or  honest,  and  yet  thrown  over  all,  the  cloak  of  zeal  for  the  glory 
of  God.  I  have  just  called  attention  to  one  case.  But  this  is  not 
a  solitary  or  the  worst  case.  Another  statement  in  his  first  reply 
to  me,  much  surpasses  it.  He  contemptuously  appeals  on  p. 
496,  to  common  sense,  as  deciding  that  in  order  to  prove  my 
views  of  the  meaning  of  (SaitTi^u,  by  the  Fathers,  I  must  allege 
examples  in  which  they  use  the  word  in  question,  and  pointedly 
denies  that  I  do  it.  Hear  his  words,  "  But  Mr.  Beecher  attempts 
no  such  thing,  he  does  not  appeal  to  the  use  of  the  word  by  the 
Fathers,  but  to  other  words  applied  by  the  Fathers  to  the  same 
ordinance."  He  then  graciously  acquits  me  of  intentional  dis- 
honesty, and  insults  me  by  professing  to  do  me  the  justice  to 
believe  that  I  am  the  dupe  of  my  own  credulity,  and  that  a  cre- 
dulity childishly  weak.  In  reply,  I  informed  Dr.  Carson  that  he 
had  misstated  obvious  facts,  that  I  did  appeal  to  the  use  of  the 
word  by  the  Fathers,  and  that  he  must  have  knoicn  U,  because  he 
tried  to  answer  the  passages.     See  p.  224,  §  68. 

In  this  case  he  not  only  grossly  misstated  a  simple  matter  of 
fact,  but  he  then  ridiculed  and  insulted  me  on  the  basis  of  that 
misstatement.  I  pointed  out  to  him  the  entire  falsehood  of  his 
statement.  Would  not  an  honest  man  correct  it  in  a  second 
edition  ?  Would  not  an  honorable  man  apologize  for  the  ground- 
less insult,  and  retract  it  ?  But  Dr.  Carson  does  neither.  In  the 
last  edition  of  his  reply,  he  retains  the  same  obviously  false 
statement,  and  the  same  insult  to  me  based  upon  it. 

And  yet  no  one  can  eulogize  Dr.  Carson  more  highly  for 
candor,  honesty,  and  a  single-hearted  regard  to  the  glory  of  God 


§  98.  DR.  Carson's  bad  spirit.  319 

than  he  has  eulogized  himself.  He  is  profuse  in  his  claims  of 
the  full  possession  of  nearly  every  moral  virtue. 

But  after  all,  I  must  judge  by  acts,  and  not  by  words.  When  a 
man  makes  such  professions  whilst  doing  such  acts,  I  cannot  but 
call  his  professions,  the  guize  of  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God,  and 
declare  that  he  is  unwilling  to  admit  the  truth,  and  therefore  mis- 
represents and  denies  it.  In  the  statement  of  my  principles  he 
took  the  same  course,  and  he  has  done  it  again  in  his  second  reply. 

But  in  defence  of  himself  he  says,  "  I  never  pronounce  on  the 
motives  of  my  opponents  ;  but  I  always  as  a  matter  of  duty 
measure  their  talents,"  p.  494.  Again,  "I  never  judge  the 
heart,"  p.  12.  What  then  is  the  meaning  of  such  charges  as 
these,  that  I  am  guilty  of  "perverse  cavilling?"  p.  459.  That 
in  reasoning  with  me  he  is  called  upon  "  to  put  obstinacy  to  the 
blush  and  overwhelm  it  with  confusion,"  p.  456.  That  my 
"  artifice  is  dishonest  and  uncandid,"  p.  449.  "  That  my  cavilling 
is  unworthy  of  a  candid  mind  and  a  sound  understanding,"  p. 
438.     And  finally,  "  that  I  am  guilty  of  blasphemy,"  p.  495. 

As  to  the  duty  of  measuring  an  antagonist's  talents,  I  admit 
it,  so  far  as  it  is  implied  in  a  candid  and  honorable  answer  of 
his  arguments.  But  all  attempts  to  destroy  the  reputation  and 
influence  of  an  antagonist  by  exposing  incidental  errors,  whilst 
his  main  arguments  are  left  unanswered,  I  regard  as  dishonor- 
able and  unchristian. 

But  Dr.  Carson  says.  "  I  act  on  principle,  solemnly  and 
deliberately.  My  design  is  to  show  my  unlearned  readers,  what 
account  they  are  to  make  of  his  discoveries,  in  a  balloon  above  the 
clouds,  from  a  specimen  of  what  he  has  done  before  their  own 
eyes.  In  questioning  a  decision  of  a  court  of  law,  is  it  not  proper 
to  show  that  they  who  made  the  decision  were  men  without  dis- 
crimination,  and  without  accurate  knowledge  of  the  law  ?  If  such 
a  case  is  made  out  has  it  not  the  nature  of  evidence  ? 

To  all  this  I  reply,  the  time  was  when  Dr.  Carson  did  not  call 
explicit  quotations  from  Greek  writers,  on  the  import  of  the  word 


320  DR.  Carson's  bad  spirit.  §  98. 

^a'TTi^w,  a  balloon  above  the  clouds.  When  he  began  the  con- 
troversy, he  made  numerous  quotations  from  writers  of  classic 
Greek,  which  to  the  unlearned  are  certainly  as  much  a  balloon 
above  the  clouds,  as  my  quotations  from  the  Fathers.  Yet  he  then 
said,  "  I  shall  give  a  copious  list  of  examples,  as  it  is  from  this 
that  my  readers  will  be  able  independently  to  form  their  own 
judgment.  This  method  will  doubtless  appear  tedious  and  un- 
interesting to  many  ;  but  it  is  the  only  method  entitled  to  authority. 
For  a  writer  on  controverted  subjects,  to  give  merely  his  own 
opinion  of  the  import  of  his  documents,  accompanied  by  a  few 
examples  as  a  specimen  of  proof,  would  be  the  same  as  if  an 
advocate  should  present  a  judge  and  jury  with  his  own  views  of 
evidence,  instead  of  giving  them  all  his  facts  and  circumstances 
in  detail  to  enable  them  to  decide  with  knowledge.  A  work  of 
this  kind  is  not  for  amusement,  but  requires  patience  and  industry 
in  the  reader  as  well  as  in  the  writer.  If  the  one  has  ransacked 
documents  to  most  readers  inaccessible,  to  collect  evidence,  the 
other  should  not  grudge  the  toil  of  examining  the  evidence,  seeing 
it  is  only  by  such  an  examination  that  he  can  have  the  fullest 
conviction  of  the  truth.  Is  the  meaning  of  this  word  to  be 
eternally  disputed  ?  If  one  party  says  it  has  this  meaning  and 
another  that,  while  a  third  differs  from  both,  and  a  fourth  is  con- 
fident that  all  three  are  wrong,  what  method  can  legitimately 
settle  the  controversy,  but  an  actual  appeal  to  the  passages  in 
which  it  is  to  be  found  ?  These  are  the  witnesses  whose  testi- 
mony must  decide  this  question ;  and  consequently  the  more 
numerous  and  definite  the  examples,  the  more  authoritative  will 
be  the  decision.  And  as  it  is  possible  to  tamper  with  evidence, 
the  witnesses  must  be  questioned  and  cross-questioned,  that  the 
truth  may  be  ascertained  without  a  doubt.  Instead,  therefore,  of 
making  an  apology  for  the  number  of  my  examples,  and  the 
length  of  the  observations  that  ascertain  their  meaning,  the  only 
thing  I  regret  is,  that  I  have  not  every  passage  in  which  the  word 
occurs  in  the  Greek  language." 


§  98.  DR.  Carson's  bad  spirit.  321 

So  spake  Dr.  Carson  when  in  the  first  fervor  of  controversy  he 
girded  on  his  armor.  Then,  copious  extracts  from  the  original 
writers,  were  not  a  balloon  above  the  clouds.  Then,  it  was  the 
duty,  even  of  unlearned  readers,  to  study  such  extracts,  and  to 
form  their  judgment  from  them,  and  they  were  able  so  to  do,  p. 
480.  Then,  it  was  the  only  authoritative  mode.  Then,  he  re- 
gretted that  he  had  not  every  passage  in  which  the  word  occurs 
in  the  Greek  language.  But  at  last,  I  place  before  him  and  his 
readers  a  copious  collection  of  passages  from  the  Fathers,  the 
very  best  authorities  extant,  as  he  pointedly  assures  us,  when  lo ! 
all  of  a  sudden  he  begins  to  doubt  the  capacity  of  his  unlearned 
readers  to  understand  them.  My  discoveries  are  now,  it  seems, 
so  far  as  they  are  concerned,  in  a  balloon  above  the  clouds,  and 
to  enable  them  to  judge  of  them,  he  feels  called  on  solemnly  and 
deliberately  to  assail  my  competency  as  a  scholar,  upon  some 
trifling  points,  merely  incidental  to  the  main  issue,  in  order  to 
destroy  the  force  of  direct  testimony  produced  by  me  on  the  vital 
point  of  the  whole  discussion. 

Dr.  Carson  professes  to  do  all  this  on  principle,  solemnly  and 
deliberately  !  He  may  do  it  deliberately.  But  that  he  can  do  it 
with  a  right  spirit,  and  on  right  principles,  I  deny  ;  and  if  such 
maxims  were  universally  followed  in  controversy,  no  great  ques- 
tion could  ever  be  settled,  and  nothing  could  result  but  unworthy 
jangling,  and  endless  confusion. 

Dr.  Carson  adds,  "  In  like  manner,  when  we  ask  who  are  our 
opponents,  and  assert  that  all  illustrious  scholars  of  all  ages  and 
countries  are  on  our  side,  our  design  is  not  wantonly  to  wound. 
There  is  in  this  fact  a  species   of  self-evidence." 

But  Dr.  Carson's  implication  that  all  illustrious  scholars  of  all 
ages  are  with  him  is  entirely  unfounded.  In  principle  they  are 
with  me,  for  they  all  maintain  that  ^a-TTTi^w  has  a  secondary  sense. 
This  even  Dr.  Carson  admits.  On  p.  55,  he  says  concerning 
/Sa-n-ri^w,  "  My  position   is,   THAT  IT  always   signifies  to   dip  ; 

NEVER  EXPRESSING  ANYTHING    BUT    MODE.       NoW  OS    I  have  all  the 

14* 


322  ATTACKS  ON  MY  COMPETENCY.  §  99. 

lexicographers  and  commentators  against  me  in  this  opinion,  it  will 
be  necessary  to  say  a  word  or  two  with  respect  to  the  authority  of 
lexicons." 

So  then,  as  it  regards  Dr.  Carson's  fun'^amental  position,  the 
"  illustrious  scholars"  are  against  him,  and  not  against  me,  and  the 
presumptive  evidence,  according  to  his  own  principles,  is  against 
his  system,  and  not  against  mine. 

5  99.     Attacks  on  my  Competency. 

To  this  I  add  that  I  do  not  admit  that,  even  on  incidental 
points,  he  has  proved  errors  on  me.  I  have  refrained  from  an- 
swering such  assaults,  because  I  wished  to  keep  Dr.  Carson  and 
my  readers  to  the  main  issue,  and  not  to  lose  myself  and  them  in 
a  labyrinth  of  minute  and  profitless  discussions. 

Such  assaults  I  called  logical  musquitoes.  They  have  a  sting, 
they  buzz,  they  irritate  ;  but  they  have  no  fatal  power,  and  are 
so  numerous  and  minute  that  there  is  no  time  to  pursue  them. 
But  if  it  were  of  any  importance,  they  are  easily  killed.  And 
since  Dr.  Carson  makes  so  much  of  them,  I  will  kill  a  few  as  a 
specimen.  He  arrays  seven  of  them  at  the  beginning  of  his 
second  reply. 

The  first  is  this.  "  He  makes  the  words  haptismos  and  katharis- 
mos  synonymous,  on  the  ground  that  they  both,  in  a  certain  place, 
refer  to  the  same  rite.  This  is  an  error  into  which  no  philologist 
could  fall  ;  it  shows  a  remarkable  deficiency  in  discrimination." 

He  here  refers  to  my  argument  on  Jn.  iii.  25.  I  reply,  I  do 
not  make  them  synonymous  on  that  ground  alone.  In  view  of  all 
the  facts  of  the  case,  I  exercised  a  critical  judgment  to  that  efl^ect, 
and  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  shows  that  I  judged  rightly. 
See  §68,  and  §  67,  No.  1. 

The  second  is  this.  "  He  makes  haptismos  a  word  denot- 
ing purification  in  general,  because  it  is  a  synonyme  of  the 
word  katharismos ;  and  the  general  word  katharismos  he  makes 


§  99.  ATTACKS  ON  MY  COMPETENCY.  323 

specific,  as  it  corresponds  to  haptismos.  I  have  called  this  legerde- 
main. Here,  also,  I  might  offer  a  premium  for  a  purer  specimen 
of  nonsense,"  p.  488. 

To  this  1  reply,  the  assertions  are  both  false.  I  judge  that 
haptismos  sometimes  means  purification  in  view  of  evidence,  and 
infer  that  in  that  sense  it  is  synonymous  with  katharismos.  The 
general  word  katharismos  I  do  not  make  specific,  but  apply  it  as 
a  generic  word,  to  any  kind  of  purification,  and  I  show  that 
the  Fathers  use  haptismos  in  the  same  way  as  a  generic  term, 
when  it  denotes  purification. 

The  third  is,  "  That  the  disputed  word  signifies  purification, 
he  proves  from  Malachi,  iii.  1 — 3.  Does  not  even  a  child  see 
that  the  prophet  does  not  refer  to  ritual  purification,  but  to  the 
separation  of  the  chaff  from  the  wheat ;  and  that  the  prophecy 
could  have  been  equally  fulfilled  had  no  ritual  ordinance  of  pu- 
rification ever  been  instituted  ?" 

I  reply.  This  passage  plainly  predicts  a  purification  of  the  spirit 
to  be  effected  by  the  Messiah  ;  but  the  Fathers  declare  that  the  pas- 
sage is  a  prediction  of  the  baptism  of  the  spirit,  to  be  effected  by  th*- 
Messiah.  Does  not  this  prove  that  baptism  and  purification  are 
synonymous  ?  If  a  spiritual  baptism  was  thus  predicted  of  the 
Messiah,  in  Mai.  iii.  1 — 3,  then  a  new  symbolical  baptism  would 
arrest  attention,  and  lead  to  the  inquiry,  has  not  the  great  bap- 
tizercome  ?  Now  by  a  critical  judgment  on  the  New  Testament, 
I  decided  that  this  was  the  true  view,  even  before  reading  the 
Fathers.     The  Fathers  sustain  my  judgment. 

The  fourth  is,  "  He  makes  the  title  of  John  the  Baptist  origi- 
nate in  the  administration  of  a  rite  of  purification,  and  he  finds 
proof  for  this  in  John's  being  a  moral  reformer.  May  I  not  offer 
another  premium  here  ?"  I  reply,  I  do  not  find  proof  for  it  in 
John's  being  a  moral  reformer.  I  merely  say  that  the  nam© 
John  the  purifier,  would  be  an  appropriate  name  for  him  as  a 
reformer,  which  is  the  truth.  As  a  reformer,  it  was  fit  that  he 
should  both  administer  a  rite  of  purification,  and  be  called  a 
purifier.  I  stated  these  undeniable  facts,  and  l«ft  every  man  to 
inf<$r  what  he  pleased  from  them. 


324  ATTACKS  ON  MY  COMPETENCY.  §  99. 

The  fifth  is,  "  He  proceeds  on  the  principle,  that  every  occur- 
rence of  a  word  must  prove  its  own  meaning.  No  philologist  could 
fall  into  such  an  error.  The  meaning  of  no  word  could  submit 
to  such  a  test." 

I  proceed  on  no  such  principle.  My  words  are  these,  "  Proof 
of  the  meaning  of  a  word  in  one  passage,  is  not  of  course  proof  of 
its  meaning  in  another ;  because  the  meanings  of  all  words  are 
liable  to  change.  Now  in  all  cases  where  the  meaning  immerse 
has  been  proved  by  Dr.  Carson,  to  belong  to  (Sam'Ti^u,  I  do  not 
deny  that  it  so  belongs.  But  this  is  not  proof  of  its  meaning  in 
all  other  cases.  Its  meaning  in  each  case  must  he  decided  for 
itself. ^^  I  do  not  say  that  each  case  can  or  must  prove  its  oum 
meaning,  but  that  each  case  must  be  decided  separately.  The 
evidence  may  be  derived  from  any  source,  in  the  passage,  or  out 
of  it.  When  one  meaning  of  the  word  has  been  established, 
there  may  be  no  reason  in  many  other  passages  to  introduce  a 
secondary  sense.  But  in  other  cases  there  may  be  a  reason  ;  if  so, 
let  it  be  done.  Is  it  not  a  very  different  thing  to  say  that  the 
meaning  of  a  word  must  be  decided  in  each  passage  separately, 
from  saying  that  every  occurrence  of  a  word  must  prove  its  own 
meaning  ?  Such  a  thing  I  never  said.  Dr.  Carson  ought  to  have 
had  perspicacity  enough  to  know  it. 

The  sixth  is,  "  With  respect  to  the  testimony  of  Josephus,  Mr. 
Beecher  tells  us,  '  that  there  was  nothing  to  cause  Josephus  to 
think  of  the  mode,  or  to  attach  any  importance  to  it.'  This 
observation  assumes  as  a  principle,  that  Josephus  had  a  share  in 
giving  this  rite  its  name.  Can  anything  be  more  unlike  a  philo- 
logist ?  Can  any  observation  be  more  destitute  of  common 
sense  ?  Josephus  speaks  of  the  rite  by  the  name  already  given 
to  it." 

I  reply,  my  observation  assumes  no  such  principle.  I  state 
the  fact  that  Josephus  applies  the  term  ^oKritfij  to  the  rite.  I 
then  inquire  in  what  sense  he  probably  used  it.  It  has  two 
senses,  1.  Immersion,  and  2.  Washing,  or  purification.  This 
I  had  proved,  this  lexicographers  assert.      Then  to   show  the 


§  9^.  ATTACKS   ON  MY  COMPETENCy.  325 

probability  that  Josephus  used  it  in  the  second  sense  I  say, 
"  there  was  nothing  to  cause  him  to  think  of  the  mode,  or  to 
attach  any  importance  to  it.  No  idea  of  a  fancied  reference  in 
the  rite  to  the  death  of  Christ,  could  Has  his  mind  to  the  sense  im- 
merse.  To  him  il  is  plain  that  it  meant  nothing  but  purifying  the 
hody,'^  &c.  Does  this  imply  that  I  conceived  that  Josephus 
named  the  rite  ?  Not  at  all.  It  is  merely  an  effort  to  show  that 
he  used  the  word  (SaifTidig  in  the  sense  purijication.  Was  Dr. 
Carson  so  dull  that  he  could  not  see  this  1  It  was  not  enough  so 
unaccountably  to  misunderstand  and  misrepresent  me,  but  on  the 
basis  of  such  misrepresentation,  he  must  assail  my  capacity  as  a 
philologist,  and  my  common  sense. 

The  seventh  is,  "  As  a  proof  that  the  disputed  word  is  often 
used  in  the  sense  for  which  he  contends,  he  alleges  a  passage  in 
which  the  word  is  not  used  at  all.  Is  this  philology  ?  Must  this 
be  dignified  as  criticism  ?  Can  the  author  possess  that  dis- 
crimination which  is  necessary  to  determine  such  a  question  ?" 

I  reply,  I  did  not  produce  that  passage  to  prove  what  is  as- 
serted, but  to  prepare  the  way  for  such  proof.  Was  Dr. 
Carson  unable  to  see  that  the  proof  of  the  point  stated  was 
introduced  by  the  preliminary  remark  numbered  1,  and  that  I 
then  went  on  to  prove  the  point  in  No.  2.  "  They  often  use 
(3a,'n^Ti(fii6s  in  the  legal  and  sacrificial  sense  so  as  to  exclude  any 
idea  but  xa^a^itf/xo?."  I  then  quote  three  passages,  one  from 
Chrysostom,  and  two  from  Theophylact,  to  prove  the  assertion, 
each  containing  the  word  ^ccn'TK^^ios  so  used.  In  No.  3,  I  still 
further  illustrate  and  confirm  the  introductory  remark. 

Disingenuous  as  is  this  criticism  of  Dr.  Carson's,  yet  his 
other  statement,  which  I  have  already  exposed,  is  still  worse, 
for  in  that  he  asserts  that  I  do  not  here  appeal  to  the  use 
of  the  word  (SwjrrKfiios  by  the  Fathers  at  all.  Nay,  that  I  at- 
tempt no  such  thing.  This  he  said  with  the  three  passages  above 
referred  to  before  his  eyes,  and  afler  a  few  pages  he  tries  to 
answer  them. 

This  is  worse  than  bad  philology,  or  bad  criticism,  or  want  of 
discrimination.     No   man    would    resort   to   such    measures   to 


326  SECOND  SERIES  OF  ATTACKS.  §  100. 

injure  the  influence  of  an  antagonist,  who  had  not  a  desperate 
cause  to  defend. 

It  is  on  the  strength  of  such  flimsy  allegations  as  these,  that  he 
winds  up  by  saying,  "  This  is  but  a  small  specimen  of  the 
author's  qualifications  as  a  critic,  yet  it  clearly  manifests  his  in- 
competency." 

This  Dr.  Carson  said,  be  it  remembered,  whilst  he  was  re 
fusing  to  answer  quotations  from  the  Fathers  expressly  defining 
f3a.<n'Ti^o  as  meaning  to  purify,  and  was  calling  these  a  balloon  in 
the  clouds  !  This  he  did  in  order  that  his  unlearned  readers,  by 
losing  all  confidence  in  me,  might  conclude  that  there  was 
nothing  in  the  balloon  worth  looking  at ; — and  Dr.  Carson  took  good 
care  not  to  tell  them  what  was  there.  Such  things  appear  to  me 
so  contemptible  that  I  would  not  notice  them,  if  Dr.  Carson  were 
not  endorsed  and  eulogized  as  he  is.  But  as  men  are,  they 
produce  their  effect,  and  the  cause  of  truth  demands  their 
exposure. 

§  100.     Second  Series  of  Attacks. 

The  last  page  and  a  half  of  his  second  reply  is  employed  in  a 
similar  onset  upon  me.  "  To  enable  my  readers  to  estimate  the 
qualifications  of  my  antagonist  as  a  controversialist,  I  shall 
slightly  notice  the  several  particulars  which  he  states  in  recom- 
mendation of  his  view,  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  dispute." 

But  this  statement  of  recommendations  is  no  part  of  my  argu- 
ment. The  argument  is  closed,  and  my  recommendations  are 
based  on  its  truth.  Why  did  he  not  answer  my  argument  ? 
That  is  the  proper  way  to  enable  them  to  judge  of  my  qualifica- 
tions as  a  controversialist.  His  real  aim  is  disclosed  at  the  end 
of  his  assault,  in  these  words,  "  Now  I  call  the  attention  of  my 
plain  unlettered  readers  to  this  brief  specimen  of  my  antagonist's 
reasoning  powers,  that  they  may  judge  what  confidence  to  place 
in  his  criticism.  If  in  matters  of  common  sense  he  stumbles  at 
every  step,  can  he  be  trusted  in  matters  of  the  most  profound 


§  100.  DR.  Carson's  aim.  327 

metaphysics  ?'*  The  plain  English  of  this  is,  Dr.  Carson,  not 
being  able  to  answer  my  argument,  goes  to  work  to  destroy  the 
confidence  of  his  plain  unlettered  readers  in  me,  by  exhibiting  a 
specimen  of  my  reasoning  powers,  in  a  passage  where  I  was  not 
reasoning  at  all,  but  was  stating  recommendations  of  my  view  on 
the  assumption  that  I  had  already  proved  my  point. 

I  will  introduce  some  of  his  items  by  the  remark  that  if  all 
should  adopt  my  views  as  true,  the  effect  would  be  that  every 
man  could  be  baptized  in  the  way  he  prefers.  No  valued  practice 
would  be  taken  away.  But  the  right  to  deem  those  wrong  who 
do  not  immerse,  would  be  taken  away.  These  things  are  too 
plain  to  be  denied. 

To  express  these  ideas  I  said,  "  the  position  defended  by  me, 
takes  nothing  from  any  one,  but  the  right  to  think  others  wrong 
and  to  censure  and  exclude  them."  No  candid  man  could  fail 
to  see  that  in  these  words  I  referred  specifically  to  the  Baptists. 

Concerning  this  Dr.  Carson  says,  "  He  tells  us  for  instance 
that  to  adopt  his  conclusions  '  takes  nothing  from  any  one  but  the 
right  to  think  others  wrong.'  Now  was  there  ever  a  purer 
specimen  of  absurdity  than  this  ?  Were  it  as  true  as  it  is  false, 
it  could  not  take  from  any  man  the  right  to  think  another  wrong." 
To  adopt  my  views  would  surely  take  from  every  Baptist  the  right 
to  think  those  wrong  who  baptize  by  sprinkling,  and  this  is  plainly 
all  that  I  meant.  Dr.  Carson  takes  my  words  as  if  I  meant  that 
it  would  take  away  in  all  cases,  the  general  right  of  thinking 
others  wrong,  and  then  gravely  reasons  against  such  a  fiction. 
He  proceeds,  "  Must  not  every  one  who  thinks  his  own  view  on 
any  subject  right,  think  all  others  wrong  who  differ  from  him  ? 
Does  not  the  writer  think  that  I  am  wrong  ?"  I  reply,  the  con- 
text and  the  nature  of  the  case,  limited  my  meaning  to  the  Baptists, 
and  to  the  particular  right  now  exercised  by  them  of  thinking  all 
who  do  not  immerse,  wrong,  and  of  excluding  them  from  the 
church.  Dr.  Carson  might  easily  have  seen  that  this  was  my  sense  ; 
but  he  was  hunting  after  specimens  of  pure  absurdity  for  the  sake 


328  IMMERSION  INCONVENIENT.  §  100. 

of  his  "  plain  unlettered  readei*s,"  and  to  understand  me  truly 
was  not  to  his  purpose. 

If  any  man,  in  interpreting  the  word  of  God,  should  thus  look 
merely  at  the  sound  of  words,  and  overlook  the  end,  scope,  and 
spirit  of  the  writer,  he  could  manufacture  similar  "  pure  absur- 
dities" to  any  amount.  To  Dr.  Carson  I  will  apply  his  own  words, 
"  In  a  controversialist  nothing  can  compensate  for  candor." 

I  mentioned  six  considerations  as  recommending  my  view. 
Dr.  Carson  says,  "  it  is  perfect  absurdity  to  talk  of  recommenda- 
tions, on  one  side  or  the  other  in  such  matters.  Whatever  God 
has  appointed  must  be  observed." 

But  could  not  Dr.  Carson  see  that  I  regarded  my  view,  on  the 
ground  of  previous  proof,  as  setting  forth  the  appointment  of 
God  ?  And  is  it  perfect  absurdity  to  talk  of  recommendations  of 
God's  appointment,  after  I  had  proved  that  it  was  such  ?  I  did 
not  try  to  prove  that  God  ordained  in  the  rite  of  baptism,  nothing  but 
purification,  by  recommendations.  I  proved  it  by  evidence  which 
Dr.  Carson  neither  did  nor  could  answer,  and  then  I  set  forth  the 
considerations  which  do  in  fact  recommend  the  view,  when 
proved. 

1.  Dr.  Carson  tries  to  rebut  my  assertion  that  my  view  is 
"  better  adapted  to  the  varying  conditions  of  man,  and  to  all 
changes  of  climate,  times,  seasons,  and  health."  He  tells  us  that 
immersion  is  healthy  in  all  climates ;  that  if  needed,  the  warm 
bath  can  be  used,  and  that  in  such  sickness  as  prevents  immer- 
sion, the  rite  is  not  a  duty. 

But  after  all,  he  well  knows  that  immersion,  especially  in  cold 
weather,  and  where  there  are  no  baptisteries  and  other  con- 
veniences,  is  a  very  troublesome  and  inconvenient  rite,  and  that 
in  some  circumstances  it  may  be  impossible,  even  to  those  in 
health.  Its  inconvenience,  in  fact,  led  to  a  change  in  the  greater 
part  of  Europe.  Besides,  Dr.  Carson  himself  says,  that "  if  it  were 
left  optional  he  would  never  immerse,"  p.  448.  Is  not  this  a 
virtual  confession  of  the  truth  of  all  that  I  have  said  ? 


^  100.  MY  VIEW  LIBERAL  AND  REASONABLE.  329 

2.  I  declared  my  view  to  be  more  accordant  with  the  liberal 
and  enlarged  spirit  of  Christianity,  as  a  religion  of  freedom,  de- 
signed for  all  countries  and  all  times. 

Dr.  Carson  replies,  "  Does  the  writer  mean  that  the  pre- 
scription of  mode,  as  emblematical  in  a  Christian  rite,  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  practice  of  religion  ?  Another  may  as  well  say, 
that  the  prescription  of  water,  or  of  wine,  or  of  anything  else,  is 
equally  inconsistent  with  Christianity.  What  a  notion  this  writer 
must  have  of  religious  freedom  !" 

I  reply,  an  inspired  apostle  called  the  Mosaic  ritual  a  yoke 
that  the  Jews  were  not  able  to  bear ;  and  declared  to  Gentile  be- 
lievers that  in  being  exempt  from  it,  they  were  called  to  liberty  ; 
and  when  Judaizers  would  impose  on  them  the  necessity  of  cir- 
cumcision, he  said,  "  be  not  entangled  again  in  the  yoke  of 
bondage." 

Though  of  divine  origin,  yet  the  observances  of  Judaism  were 
so  excessively  inconvenient  and  troublesome  as  to  be  called  a 
yoke,  and  to  be  exempt  from  such  forms,  under  Christianity,  was 
by  inspiration  called  freedom. 

Now  immersion  is  an  excessively  inconvenient  rite,  and  I 
had  proved  that  it  was  not  of  divine  appointment.  Was  I  not 
then  authorized  to  say  that  the  spirit  of  Christianity  as  a  religion 
of  freedom  from  burdensome  rites,  and  my  view  which  delivered 
Christians  from  a  burdensome  rite,  were  in  strict  accordance  ? 

I  did  not  say,  "  that  the  prescription  of  mode  as  emblematical 
in  a  Christian  rite,  is  inconsistent  with  the  practice  of  religion." 
The  Mosaic  system  was  not  inconsistent  with  the  practice  of  re- 
ligion, and  yet,  though  divinely  ordained,  it  was,  because  of  its 
inconvenience,  a  yoke.  Much  more  is  immersion,  which  is  not 
divinely  ordained,  a  yoke,  and  exemption  from  it  is  freedom. 

3.  I  said,  "  It  better  agrees  with  our  ideas  of  what  is  reasonable 
and  fit." 

Dr.  Carson  replies,  "  And  will  the  writer  take  on  him  to  say 
that  it  is  not  reasonable  and  fit,  in  God,  to  appoint  immersion  as 


330  FORMALISM    AND    ARROGANCE.  §  100. 

the  mode  of  this  ordinance,  as  an  emblem  of  the  burial  of  Christ  ? 
If  this  is  not  blasphemy,  I  know  not  what  blasphemy  is." 

I  reply — I  first  proved  by  evidence  that  Dr.  Carson  could  not 
answer,  that  God  did  not,  in  fact,  ordain  immersion  as  an  em- 
blem of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  And 
having  thus  decided  that  God  did  not  ordain  the  burdensome  rite 
in  question,  but  allowed  men  to  use  the  beautiful,  simple,  and  sig- 
nificant rite  of  sprinkling,  I  said  this  better  agrees  with  our  ideas 
of  what  is  reasonable  and  fit.  And  is  it  blasphemous  to  regard 
as  peculiarly  reasonable  and  fit  what  I  had  just  proved  that  God 
has  actually  done  1 

4.  I  say — "  It  offers  no  temptation  to  formalism,  nor  does  it 
tend  to  foster  arrogance  and  exclusion."  Dr.  Carson  replies: 
"  Here  is  the  very  spirit  of  philosophy."  How  so  ?  It  is  mere- 
ly eulogizing  a  decision  of  God,  as  tending  to  spirituality,  hu- 
mility, and  unity.     Is  this  the  very  spirit  of  philosophy  ? 

Dr.  Carson  proceeds — "  How  does  immersion  or  any  other 
mode  appointed  by  God  offer  a  temptation  to  formalism  ?  Is  it 
formalism  to  observe  a  mode  which  by  the  very  supposition  is 
appointed  by  God  ?     Is  it  formalism  to  observe  divine  forms  ?" 

I  reply — Where  rites  are  numerous  and  complex,  even  if  or- 
dained by  God,  they  tend  to  formalism,  more  than  a  few  simple 
rites.  So  it  was  notoriously  in  Judaism.  Again,  a  rite  which  is 
the  grand  peculiarity  of  one  sect,  and  which  excludes  from  it 
all  others,  even  though  real  Christians,  even  if  ordained  of  God, 
would  tend  to  assume  undue  importance,  and  to  take  the  place  of 
spiritual  religion.  Tiie  mere  observance  of  divine  forms  is  not 
of  necessity  formalism.  Bui  to  put  forms,  even  divine  forms,  in 
the  place  of  spirituality,  is  formalism. 

But  I  did  not,  when  I  wrote,  admit  that  immersion  was  a  di- 
vine form.  I  had  proved  that  it  was  not.  This  being  the  case, 
much  more  does  it  tend  to  formalism,  to  exalt  such  a  human  form 
above  piety,  and  to  refuse  to  receive  or  commune  with  those 
whom  God  has  received,  and  with  whom  he  communes. 


§  100.  ADEQUACY   TO    HARMONIZE  THE    CHURCH.  331 

"  As  to  arrogance,"  proceeds  Dr.  Carson,  "  is  it  arrogant  to 
say  that  immersion  is  the  only  mode,  if  that  is  the  meaning  of 
the  word  ?"  I  reply,  no,  if  such  is  the  fact.  But  the  belief  that 
such  is  the  fact,  when  it  is  not,  tends  to  arrogance,  in  its  influence 
on  partially  sanctified  men,  as  facts  show. 

Was  it  not  arrogant,  when,  in  the  report  of  the  American  Bap- 
tist Bible  Society,  it  was  announced  "  that  the  heathen  world 
must  look  to  THEM  ALONE  for  an  unveiled  view  of  the  glories  of 
the  Gospel  of  Christ." 

And  what  produced  this  arrogance  ?  Was  it  not  magnifying 
the  mere  rite  of  immersion  as  the  exclusive  glory  of  a  sect  ? 
And  did  this  not  result  from  their  views  of  the  meaning  of  the 
word  ? 

Nor  is  this  all.  I  have  proved  that  immersion  is  not  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  and  it  was  also  on  the  ground  of  this  proof  that 
I  spoke  as  I  did  of  the  influence  of  the  Baptist  view  of  immersion 
in  producing  arrogance. 

Dr.  Carson  proceeds,  "  As  to  exclusion,  the  meaning  of  the 
word  is  not  concerned  in  settling  the  question  of  church  fellow, 
ship." 

I  reply,  it  is,  in  fact,  concerned,  and  it  does  affect  it  in  fact. 
Dr.  Carson,  I  know,  held  to  open  communion,  after  the  example 
of  Robert  Hall.  But  his  brethren  in  America  regard  such  views 
as  loose  and  erroneous,  and  do,  as  a  general  fact,  exclude  from 
communion  all  who  do  not  believe  and  practise  as  they  do,  with 
reference  1o  immersion. 

5.  I  say  "  it  is  perfectly  adequate  to  harmonize  the  church." 

Dr.  Carson  replies  :  "  What  a  recommendation  !  Is  it  not  ob- 
vious to  every  human  intellect,  that  any  view  of  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  if  universally  received,  is  equally  calculated  to  effect 
harmony  ?" 

But  I  did  not  say,  nor  mean,  that  my  view,  if  universally  received^ 
was  adequate  to  harmonize  the  church.  I  said  unconditionally 
that  it  was  adequate  to  do  it.  I  meant  that  it  was  better  adapted 
than  any  other  view,  to  be  universally  received.     The   reasons 


332  SUSCEPTIBILITY  OF  PROOF.  §  100. 

were,  that  it  leaves  to  all  the  mode  of  baptism  which  they  prefer, 
and  its  truth  is  so  easily  evinced,  that  it  is  eminently  adapted  to 
convince  all. 

Dr.  Carson  then,  in  order  to  make  out  an  a  bsurdity,  intro- 
duces the  condition,  if  universally  received,  which  is  purely  an 
idea  of  his  own,  and  all  that  produces  the  aspect  of  absurdity,  and 
then  proceeds  to  ridicule  it,  as  if  it  were  mine,  as  follows : 

"  The  advocates  of  pouring,  of  sprinkling,  of  immersing,  &;c. 
dec,  may  all  equally  allege  that  recommendation.  Even  if  a 
man  says  that  the  word  signifies  to  tattoo  ;  he  may  say  that,  if  all 
parties  receive  this  meaning,  it  would  harmonize  the  church.  Was 
ever  such  a  specimen  of  reasoning  committed  to  the  types  ?" 

I  answer,  no  ;  certainly  not  by  me.  It  is  all  a  pure  fiction  of 
Dr.  Carson,  got  up  for  the  benefit  of  his  "  plain,  unlettered 
readers,"  who   either  cannot  or  will  not  see  through  his  sophistry. 

No  doubt  it  will  produce  its  effect.  I  do  not  expect  that  the 
majority  of  Dr.  Carson's  readers  will  ever  see  my  reply.  He 
has  no  doubt  gained  his  end  with  them.  But  let  all  candid  men 
judge  of  the  honor  of  such  a  course. 

6.  I  said,  "  It  is  susceptible  of  any  degree  of  proof."  To  this 
Dr.  Carson  replies,  "  This  confounds  evidence  with  recommenda- 
tion. If  it  is  capable  of  proof,  it  should  be  received  without  any 
recommendation.  If  it  is  not  proved,  no  recommendation  can 
entitle  it  to  reception." 

But  I  ask,  is  it  not  a  great  recommendation  of  a  view,  that  it  is 
adapted  to  gain  universal  credence  ?  And  does  not  abundance  of 
evidence  fit  a  view  to  gain  such  credence  ?  A  view  may  be  true 
in  fact,  and  yet  the  proof  of  it  be  so  sparing,  that  it  will  never 
generally  prevail. 

I  do  not  then  confound  evidence  with  recommendation.  I  first 
show  that  the  proof  of  my  views  is  abundant,  and  then  say  that  any 
necessary  degree  of  proof  can  be  adduced. 

I  say  this,  not  to  show  that  the  view  is  true,  or  ought  to  be 
adopted.  I  had  already  abundantly  proved  this.  I  say  it  to  show 
that  the  view  is  likely  to  be  universally  adopted,  and  thus  to  bar- 


§  100.  DR.  Carson's  reasons.  333 

monize  the  church.     And  this  certainly  is  a  great   recommenda- 
tion of  the  view. 

Dr.  Carson  intimates  that  he  has  given  but  a  specimen  of  his 
proofs  of  my  incapacity.  But  he  has  given  enough  to  enable  all 
candid  men  to  judge  of  the  quality  of  the  rest.  His  first  reply  is 
filled  with  such  things.  But  I  have  already  spent  too  much  time 
upon  them.  I  have  written  thus  much,  because  the  eulogists  of 
Dr.  Carson  talk  so  loudly  of  his  honor,  fairness,  candor,  learn- 
ing, and  logical  discrimination. 

Let  now  one  fact  be  noticed.  He  does  not  dare  to  charge  me 
with  misrepresenting  him  in  one  single  instance.  Nor  does  he 
but  once  charge  me  with  omitting  what  is  essential  to  a  fair  view 
of  his  opinions,  and  in  that  one  case,  the  charge  was  as  obviously 
incorrect  as  possible. 

How  happens  it  then  that  he  has  scarcely  assailed  me  on  a  sin- 
gle point  without  resorting  to  misrepresentation  ? 

The  reason  is  plain  ;  he  could  not  assail  my  true  opinions  by 
the  truth.  Therefore  he  was  under  a  steady  temptation  to  misre- 
present them. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  more  clearly  his  opinions  are  stated,  the 
easier  is  it  for  me  to  assail  them  with  the  truth. 

Again,  why  was  he  so  tempted  to  try  to  destroy  my  personal 
reputation  as  a  scholar  ?  I  answer,  for  want  of  better  arguments. 
I  adopt  and  apply  to  Dr.  Carson  his  own  words,  "  No  man  un- 
justly disparages  the  abilities  of  his  opponent  who  is  not  con- 
scious either  of  having  a  bad  cause,  or  of  his  inability  to  defend  a 
good  one."  p.  136.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have  been  willing  all 
along  to  concede  to  Dr.  Carson  any  degree  of  ability  which  I 
fairly  can.  I  have  made  no  attacks  on  his  capacity  as  a  scholar, 
nay  I  have  admitted  it.  I  only  say,  the  greater  his  ability,  the 
clearer  is  it  that  he  was  endeavoring  to  sustain  a  desperate 
cause. 

No  man  who  was  sustained  and  guided  by  the  truth,  would 
ever  have  adopted  and  pursued  his  course. 

In  eonclusion  I  have  nothing  to  add,  but  to  request  all  who  are 


334  DR.  carson's  reasons.  §  100. 

of  a  candid  spirit  to  read  §  70  once  more,  with  which  I  close  the 
third  part  of  this  work.  May  a  truly  Christian  spirit  at  length 
unite  all  learned  scholars  and  leading  minds.  Then  will  all 
division  in  the  church  of  God  on  this  momentous  question  soon 
cease.     May  God  grant  it,  and  to  him  shall  be  the  praise  ! 


NOTES. 


Note  1  on  55  19  and  20,  pp.  48—51. 

The  analogy  between  external  purification  and  internal  purification, 
here  spoken  of,  and  the  manner  in  which  the  Fathers  commingled  both 
ideas  in  their  views  of  baptism,  are  with  great  clearness  illustrated  on 
pp.  264,  265,  in  the  passages  quoted  from  Cyril,  Gregory,  and  Clement. 
Indeed,  it  is  impossible  for  a  more  perfect  illustration  to  be  conceived 
of  the  ideas  here  stated.  In  two  cases  the  import  of  the  analogy 
cannot  be  disputed,  for  xa^a^tfjov  and  xa^aptfi^  (purification)  are  used. 
In  the  third  case  /SaTrrtfl'fAa  is  used  in  a  manner  so  perfectly  similar, 
that  it  must  have  the  same  sense.  Is  it  not  singular  that  where  Dr. 
Carson  has  most  indulged  in  efforts  to  ridicule  my  views,  then  the 
proof  of  their  correctness  from  the  Fathers  is  clearest?  Now  when 
these  analogous  senses  are  commingled  and  made  to  co-exist,  it 
changes  the  nature  of  the  external  rite  by  making  it  a  medium  of  real 
regeneration,  and  this  is  the  true  idea  of  Baptismal  Regeneration.  It 
also  changes  the  sense  of  passages  which  speak  of  internal  purification 
alone,  and  makes  them  the  proofs  of  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  as  I  have  said. 

Note  2,  on  p.  68. 

It  is  common  to  speak  of  the  modern  Greeks  as  denying  that 
jSa-rrTiTw  means  anything  but  immersion.  But  the  learned  Gases,  a 
member  of  the  modern  Greek  Church,  in  his  large  and  valuable  Lexi- 
con of  Ancient  Greek,  defined  /Sa-Trrj^w  by /S^ix">  "^^^^i  and  avrXs'w  ; 
that  is,  1.  To  wet  or  moisten.  2.  To  wash  or  to  bathe.  3.  To  draw 
water.  The  Lexicon  is  in  general  use  among  the  modern  Greeks. 
See  my  letters  to  Rev.  Wm.  Hague,  Boston — Hall  on  Baptism,  p.  37, 
and  "  Chronicle  of  the  Church,"  New  Haven,  May  25,  1838.  See 
%\%o  Remarki  on  XoiJw,  pp.  208^11  of  this  volnme,  for  proof  that  it 


336  NOTES. 

denotes  merely  to  wash,  and  is  as  applicable  when  there  is  no  immer- 
sion as  where  there  is. 

Note  3  on  p.  192  and  p.  198. 

There  is  clear  proof  that  I3a'!tri^u  denotes  washing,  or  bathing  by 
pouring,  in  the  use  of  language  describing  bathing  rooms  and  appara- 
tus. In  the  hot  baths  there  was  no  immersion.  The  hot  bath,  in  the 
public  baths  at  Pompeii,  was  a  basin  12  feet  long,  4  feet  4  inches  wide, 
and  only  1  foot  four  inches  deep.  Around  this  was  a  marble  bench, 
below  the  surface  of  the  water,  on  which  the  bathers  sat.  They  first 
scraped  themselves,  and  were  then  washed  by  having  water  poured  over 
them  from  vases,  or  pails.  But  the  name  of  the  warm  bath  was  in  Greek 
(ScfTrTKfTTjpiov,  in  Latin,  Lavacrum.  See  Eschenberg's  Manual,  pp. 
140,  639.  -  See  also  Potter's  Grecian  Antiquities,  Vol.  2,  p.  368,  for 
proof  of  the  same  fact.  Dr.  Smith,  in  his  Dictionary  of  Classical 
Antiquities,  p.  148,  states  that  the  vessel  from  which  water  was  poured 
on  the  bathers,  was  also  called  (3a<n'TKir7}piov,  and  refers  to  Pliny  for 
his  authority.  His  words  are,  "  The  word  baptisterium,  is  not  a  bath 
sufficiently  large  to  immerse  the  whole  body,  but  a  vessel  or  labrum^ 
containing  cold  water  for  pouring  over  the  head." — Plin.  Ep.  v.  6,  and 
Ep.  xvii.  2. 

This  is  only  one  more  of  the  already  innumerable  proofs  of  the 
radical  fallacy  of  Dr.  Carson's  notions.  It  also  clearly  sustains  Gases, 
in  defining  /Sacrri^w  by  Xou'w,  to  wash.     See  Note  2. 

Note  4  on  p.  242. 

There  is  one  of  my  quotations  on  which  Dr.  Carson  has  made  an 
assertion  to  which  I  reply,  by  here  annexing  a  part  of  my  reply  to  Rev. 
Wm.  Hague,  on  the  same  passage.  It  is  the  passage  from  Clement, 
p.  63,  \  60. 

I  translate  si^l  xoirrj,  "upon  a  couch."  Mr.  Hague,  following 
Potter,  translates  it  "  post  concubitum."  Dr.  Carson  translates  it  "  on 
account  of  the  bed."  Both  deny  that  it  can  mean  a  couch  to  be 
reclined  on  at  meals.  The  fact  is  that  suv^  and  X^j^oj  are  never  used 
to  denote  such  a  couch.  But  xXi'vt]  and  xo»V^  are  used  to  denote 
either  such  a  couch,  or  a  bed  for  sleep,  or  a  marriage  bed.  In  my 
reply  to  Mr.  Hague  I  answer  Dr.  Carson's  question,  "  Where  did  the 


x\OTES.  337 

r 

President  learn  that  koite  is  a  dinner  couch  1"  It  appears  that  I  learned 
it  of  Xenophon  the  Athenian.  Dr.  Carson  says  that  the  passage  means 
"  they  were  immersed  on  account  of  the  bed,"  that  is,  pollution  con- 
tracted there.  If  Dr.  C.  means  by  this,  the  pollution  of  sexual  inter- 
course, his  view  and  that  of  Mr.  Hague  in  effect  amount  to  the  same 
thing.  And  this  being  the  only  pollution  peculiar  to  the  bed,  after 
which  washing  was  prescribed,  I  suppose  that  he  must  refer  to  it.  His 
mode  of  arriving  at  his  sense  is  very  awkward — "  on  account  of  the 
bed,  that  is,  pollution  contracted  there."  The  remarks  of  Hervetus 
on  this  passage  are  these :  "  The  Jews  washed  themselves,  not  only  at 
sacrifices,  but  also  at  feasts,  and  this  is  the  reason  why  Clement  says 
that  they  were  purified,  or  washed  upon  a  couch,  that  is,  a  dining  couch 
or  triclinium.  To  this  Mark  refers,  chap.  vii.  and  Matth.  chap.  xv. 
Tertullian  also  refers  to  it  when  he  says,  Judasus  Israel  quotidie  lavat" 
(The  Jewish  Israel  daily  washes). 

I  have  adopted  the  same  view,  and  I  now  subjoin  the  defence  of  it 
already  referred  to.     See  my  letters  to  Rev.  Wm.  Hague,  pp.  21-26. 

In  this  case  I  do  not  admit  the  charge  of  error.  To  translate 
iiti  xoirr],  upon  a  couch,  is  not  erroneous.  For,  1.  The  words  will 
admit  of  this  translation.  2.  The  Syntax  will  admit  of  it,  and,  3.  The 
context ;  and,  4.  The  nature  of  the  things  spoken  of  call  for  it. 

1.  The  words  will  admit  of  my  translation.  It  will  not  be  doubted, 
I  suppose,  that  xoiVr]  can  mean  a  bed  or  couch.  Who  does  not  know 
that  this  is  its  primary  sense,  and  that  the  sense  concubitus  is  only 
secondary  and  derivative  1  Again,  it  will  not,  I  think,  be  denied  that  it 
can  mean  a  couch  at  a  feast.  For  Xenophon,  in  his  Memorabilia, 
authorizes  the  usage.  Speaking  of  the  marks  of  honor  due  from  the 
younger  to  the  elder,  he  mentions  "  rising  up  in  their  presence,  honoring 
them  with  a  soft  couch,  xoiVrj  ixakaxyj,  and  giving  them  the  precedence 
in  speech."  In  this  case,  the  couch  is  obviously  not  a  bed  for  repose  at 
night,  but  one  to  recline  on  in  a  circle  engaged  in  conversation,  and 
participating  in  the  enjoyments  of  social  life.  In  short,  it  was,  as 
Struzius  well  remarks,  in  his  learned  and  critical  Lexicon  Xenophon- 
teum,  "  lectus  quietiset  convivii,"a  couch  on  which  to  repose  and  to 
feast,  A*.  2,  3,  16.  Morell  also,  in  his  Lexicon  Prosodaicum,  gives 
xXi'vr]  and  xoiVr;  as  synonymes.  Xenophon  the  Athenian  is  surely 
sufficient  authority  for  Clement  the  Athenian  in  using  the  word  in 
this  sense.     As  to  i'ffi,  you  will  not,  I  suppose,  deny  that  it  can  be 

15 


33«  NOTES. 

translated  upon  in  this  case,  inasmuch  as  this  is  its  original  and  primary 
sense,  and  after  is  only  a  derivative  and  secondary  sense.  The  w^ords, 
then,  will  admit  of  my  translation.  So,  too,  will  the  Syntax.  Is  it  not 
as  truly  grammatical  to  say,  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  be  bap- 
tized upon  a  couch,  as  it  is  to  say,  it  was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  to  be 
baptized  "  post  concubitum  V 

We  come,  then,  to  the  context,  and  to  the  nature  of  the  things 
spoken  of.  What,  then,  is  the  context  ?  Has  Clement  been  speaking 
of  concubitus,  or  of  washings  after  concubitus,  among  the  Gentiles, 
that  he  should  here  refer  to  this  kind  of  washing  among  the  Jews?  I 
answer,  no.  He  has,  indeed,  spoken  of  the  night,  but  not  with  any 
reference  to  sexual  pollution,  as  you  seem  to  indicate,  by  copying  from 
Potter  a  reference  to  Rom.  xiii.  13,  but  to  inculcate  a  habit  of  keeping 
the  thoughts  on  God  and  eternity,  even  in  our  dreams.  The  following 
is  the  train  of  thought  preceding  the  passage  I  have  quoted.  If  a  man 
has  truly  learned  to  love  God,  he  will  not  lose  his  habits  of  virtue  in 
any  way — neither  in  a  vision  nor  in  a  dream,  nor  in  any  actings  of  the 
imagination.  Since  a  habit  never  ceases  to  be  a  habit,  and  the  dreams 
of  the  night  flow  from  the  habits  of  thought  in  the  day ;  therefore, 
the  Lord  commands  us  to  watch,  that  we  may  keep  our  natural  life  as 
pure  by  night  as  by  day.  There  is  nothing  that  tends  to  sin  in  the 
natural  night.  Indeed,  it  is  favorable  to  serious  thought,  for  it  calls  off 
the  mind  from  the  senses,  and  leaves  it  free  to  think  of  God.  The 
night  that  injures  the  soul  is  a  moral  night.  It  is  immersion  in  the 
things  of  time  and  sense,  so  as  to  exclude  eternity  and  God.  But 
happy  are  they  who  see  God,  according  to  the  Apostle,  who  says,  the 
night  is  far  spent,  the  day  is  at  hand;  let  us,  therefore,  cast  off*  the 
works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put  on  the  armor  of  light.  Rom.  xiii.  12. 
Here,  says  he,  Paul  "  figuratively  represents  by  the  day,  and  by  light, 
the  Son  of  God — and  by  the  armor  of  light  his  doctrines."  In  like 
manner  he  intimates,  that  we,  being  washed,  should  come  pure  and 
neatly  apparelled  to  engage  in  sacred  rites  and  prayers ;  and  that  our 
being  thus  purified  externally  and  neatly  arrayed,  is  merely  for  the  sake 
of  its  symbolical  import ;  for  true  purity  consists  in  placing  the  affec- 
tions on  holy  things.  Then  follows  the  passage  which  I  quoted.  "  And, 
indeed,  an  image  of  purification  (baptism)  may  have  been  transmitted 
from  Moses  to  the  poets  thus.  Penelope,  having  washed  herself,  and 
having  on  her  body  clean  apparel,  goes  to  prayer ;  and  Telemachus, 


NOTES.  339 

having  washed  his  hands  in  the  salt  sea,  prayed  to  Minerva.  And  it 
was  the  custom  of  the  Jews  that  they  should  oft  purify  (baptize)  them- 
selves upon  a  couch :"  that  is,  at  their  meals,  and  reclining  upon  a 
couch.  Let  it  now  be  remembered,  that  there  was  a  washing  of  hands 
at  meals  and  feasts  among  the  Jews,  and  that  it  was  not  a  matter  of 
mere  decorum  but  of  religious  obligation.  It  was  also  a  prominent 
custom  (s^o^)  of  the  Jews.  It  was  among  the  elders  a  prominent 
subject  of  religious  law.  So  important  was  it  deemed,  that  our  Saviour 
and  his  Apostles  were  again  and  again  called  to  account  for  neglecting 
it,  and  in  view  of  it  our  Saviour  felt  himself  called  on  repeatedly  to 
maintain  the  superior  importance  of  purity  of  heart  over  any  external 
forms  of  purification.  See  Matt.  xv.  1-20;  Mark  vii.  1-23;  Luke  xi. 
37-41.  Let  it  be  remembered,  that  these  passages  had  made  a  strong 
impression  on  Clement's  mind,  as  appears  by  the  deep  interest  with 
which  he,  in  other  parts  of  his  works,  refers  to  them.  Let  it  be  remem- 
bered, that  Clement's  preceding  train  of  thought  is  precisely  the  same 
with  that  of  Christ  in  these  passages ;  that  is,  to  exalt  mental  purity 
above  all  its  images  and  symbols.  Let  it  be  remembered,  too,  that  in 
the  view  of  Clement,  Pedagog.  Lib.  2,  Cap.  4,  Potter,  p.  113,  Vol.  1, 
Oxford,  1715,  meals  and  public  feasts  were  highly  religious  occasions, 
and  that  he  recommends  to  open  them  by  praising  the  Creator,  and 
during  their  progress  to  introduce  devotional  Psalms — (as  Ps.  33),  and 
that  he  speaks  of  the  heathen  song  ((TxoXiov)  during  feasts,  as  xa-r' 
gjxova  'E/3pajxwv  -,]^aX(jiwv  (after  the  image  of  the  Hebrew  Psalms)  ; 
and  will  any  one  dare  to  say,  that  it  was  not  both  natural  and  appro- 
priate for  him  to  pass  in  thought  from  the  religious  washing  of  hands 
by  Telemachus,  to  a  religious  washing  of  hands  by  the  Jews,  at  their 
meals  and  public  feasts?  What  custom  more  prominent,  more  public, 
more  likely  to  excite  universal  attention,  than  this?  It  was  almost  a 
national  badge  of  the  Jews.  Not  a  day  could  be  spent  with  them 
without  seeing  it  at  least  three  times  observed,  and  in  all  probability 
more.  "  For  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their 
hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders." — Mark  vii.  3. 

But  what  in  this  train  of  thought  should  lead  him  to  ipention  the 
washing  suggested  by  Potter  ?  Surely,  the  chaste  Penelope,  in  the 
absence  of  Ulysses,  and  the  unmarried  Telemachus,  needed  no  such 
washing. 

Besides,  it  was  not  merely  a  washing,  but  one  oft-repealed  {^oWaxis), 


340  NOTES. 

that  is  by  Clement  ascribed  to  the  Jews.  And  we  know  that  the  Jews 
at  meals  did  often  wash  their  hands,  as  Clement  says. 

But  did  the  law  call  for  an  oft-repeated  washing  in  the  case  referred 
to  by  Potter  !  Not  at  all.  See  Lev.  xv.  16-18.  Was  there  any  reason 
or  motive  to  repeat  it  1  None  at  all,  for  it  could  not  shorten  in  the 
least  the  stated  time  of  uncleanness.  The  law  was,  wash  in  the  morn- 
ing, and  be  unclean  till  evening. 

Was  this  a  washing  common  to  all  the  Jews,  as  such?  No,  it  was 
obviously  designed  for  those  only  who  were  married.  Was  it  a  wash- 
ing that  they  would  be  likely  to  perform  in  a  public  and  ostentatious 
way,  so  that  it  should  be  a  national  badge,  and  excite  universal  attention 
and  produce  imitation?  Let  common  sense  judge.  Of  all  Jewish 
washings  this  must  have  been  the  most  private.  W^hat  man,  and 
especially  what  woman,  would  wish  ostentatiously  to  proclaim  the 
reason  of  washing  in  such  a  case  ?  How  unlike  to  this  secret  washing, 
that  left  its  subjects  still  unclean  till  evening,  was  the  public  washing 
of  Telemachus,  of  which  Clement  had  just  spoken,  which  made  him 
clean  at  once,  so  that  he  was  not  obliged  to  wait  till  the  next  day  before 
he  could  engage  in  religious  services. 

I  freely  confess,  that  to  introduce  the  idea  "  post  concubitum"  in 
such  a  connexion  seems  to  me  alike  at  war  with  taste,  and  with  the 
eminently  spiritual  train  of  thought  in  the  context.  If  the  words,  or 
the  laws  of  syntax  forced  it  on  me,  I  would  adopt  it,  but  still  with 
great  reluctance  ;  for  it  interrupts  a  current  of  pure  spiritual  thoughts 
by  an  idea,  such  that  even  you  preferred  not  to  present  it  in  a  plain 
English  dress,  but  veiled  it  under  a  euphemism,  or  hid  it  in  the  l^atin 
tongue. 

But  neither  the  words  nor  the  syntax  forced  it  on  me.  The  primary 
and  natural  meaning  of  the  words  gives  the  sense  that  I  claim.  To 
educe  the  other  you  are  obliged  to  resort  to  derived  and  secondary 
senses. 

I  have  a  great  respect  for  Archbishop  Potter.  But  I  cannot,  on  the 
ground  of  his  naked  assertion,  adopt  a  translation  so  repulsive  and  so 
out  of  keeping  with  the  letter  and  spirit  of  the  context.  If  you  still 
choose  to  adhere  to  it,  you  are  free  to  do  so.  But  I  do  demand  that 
you  shall  not  pronounce  my  translation  erroneous  till  you  have  proved 
it  so ;  nor  charge  me  with  haste  till  you  give  some  evidence  from  the 
context  that  I  had  not  patiently  investigated  the  relations  of  the  passage 


NOTES.  341 

before  I  translated  it ;  nor  sneer  at  light  from  Illinois  till  you  have  not 
merely  asserted  but  'proved  that  Archbishop  Potter  has  given  us  the  true 
light ;  nor  try  to  destroy  the  authority  of  my  citations  till  you  have 
proved  them  incorrect. 

And  let  me  here  anticipate  any  reply  to  my  argument  from  the  sen- 
tence that  follows:  "  Well  therefore  has  it  been  said,  be  clean,  not 
merely  by  washing,  but  in  your  mind."  It  may  be  said,  that  Xourpw, 
washing,  implies  bathing,  and  cannot  be  applied  to  the  washing  of 
hands.  To  this  I  reply,  it  is  not  so.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  applies  to 
the  high-priest,  oc'ToXojtfajro,  to  denote  merely  washing  his  hands  and 
feet  in  the  laver;  and  Xourpov  is  applied  by  Basil  to  purification  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring  ;  and  so  also  it  is  by  Photius  and  others.  And  a 
basin  for  washing  the  hands  and  face  is  called  by  Pollux  and  Anaxilas 
Xourrjpiov,  and  is  used  by  way  of  contrast  to  a  bathing  tub ;  thus  "  in 
baths  there  are  no  wash-basins,"  XouT7;pia. 

And  now  let  the  candid  reader  judge,  have  I  erred  in  giving  to 
(Sam'TKfixa,  the  sense  purification,  in  its  relations  to  such  a  passage  as 
this?  especially  when  Clement  calls  the  washing  of»hands,  sixwv /Sa-n'TiC- 
/xaroj,  an  image  of  baptism  ?  An  image  of  purification,  surely,  it  is — 
of  immersion,  it  is  no  image  at  all. 

Have  I  erred  in  believing,  that  by  often  baptizing  on  a  couch,  he 
meant  that  kind  of  purification  which  was  practised  by  the  Jews,  so 
often  and  so  pertinaciously  as  to  attract  to  itself  in  a  peculiar  manner 
the  notice  of  Christ,  and  not  a  washing,  private — not  universal,  not  oft- 
repeated. 

I  am  still  further  confirmed  in  my  view  of  this  passage,  by  noticing 
the  extensive  and  spiritual  import  given  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria  to  the 
washing  of  hands  and  feet,  by  the  priests  of  old.  By  washing  their 
hands  and  feet,  he  tells  us,  they  show  forth  the  purity  and  sincerity  of 
all  their  deeds  and  icays,  so  that  it  denotes  entire  purity  of  life.  And 
he  repeatedly  speaks  of  it  as  a  designed  type  or  image  of  the  grace  of 
God  in  Christian  baptism.  Indeed,  this  seems  to  have  been  a  familiar 
ideate  all  writers  of  the  Alexandrian  school,  such  as  Clement  and 
Cyril.  And  inasmuch  as  Cyril  expressly  mentions,  as  a  baptism,  the 
sprinkling  of  the  ashes  of  a  heifer ;  we  cannot  fail  to  see,  that  by  bap- 
tism he  meant  purification  and  not  immersion ;  and  that  he  and  Cle- 
ment regarded  the  washing  of  hands  not  as  an  image  of  immersion,  for 
it  was  not,  but  as  an  image  of  purification. 


342  NOTES. 

Note  5  on  Part  11.   Chap.  II. 

Exposition  of  Romans  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii.  12. 

Dr.  Carson  has  gloried  so  greatly  in  the  passages  here  interpreted, 
that  it  is  remarkable  that  he  makes  no  reference  at  all  to  this  chapter. 
Perhaps,  he  did  not  see  it.  At  all  events  the  argument  is  as  yet 
unanswered. 


ERRATA. 

Page  18,  line  4,  for  D"'Mit3  read  t]"'5^n'a 


r^'-} 


a 

a 

r, " 

D55 

20, 

« 

23,  "     i5t2 

-  T 

29, 

a 

11,  "     ^5p. 

34, 

a 

20  "      Dib 

(( 

(( 

32,  "^ 

33, 

42, 

12,  " 
6," 

^ro: 

68, 

u 

26,  "^ 

(( 

Note,  « 

h^to 

into 

'     65,  line  1 0,  at  the  beginning,  for  bapiismus,  read  baptismum. 
'     75,  foot  note,  after  usage,  put  a  period. 
'  192,  line  12,  for  yril  read  ynn 
'  209,  line  6,  for  Niceplwras,  read  Nicephorus. 
'  264,  line  13,  for  Gallandias,  read  Gallandius. 


^ 


7 


»»♦ 


